The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Empirical Scoring Functions for Advanced Protein−Ligand Docking with PLANTS
Abstract
In this paper we present two empirical scoring functions, PLANTS(CHEMPLP) and PLANTS(PLP), designed for our docking algorithm PLANTS (Protein-Ligand ANT System), which is based on ant colony optimization (ACO). They are related, regarding their functional form, to parts of already published scoring functions and force fields. The parametrization procedure described here was able to identify several parameter settings showing an excellent performance for the task of pose prediction on two test sets comprising 298 complexes in total. Up to 87% of the complexes of the Astex diverse set and 77% of the CCDC/Astex clean listnc (noncovalently bound complexes of the clean list) could be reproduced with root-mean-square deviations of less than 2 A with respect to the experimentally determined structures. A comparison with the state-of-the-art docking tool GOLD clearly shows that this is, especially for the druglike Astex diverse set, an improvement in pose prediction performance. Additionally, optimized parameter settings for the search algorithm were identified, which can be used to balance pose prediction reliability and search speed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking 1 1Edited by F. E. Cohen
Jones, G., Willett, P., Glen, R. C., Leach, A. R., & Taylor, R. (1997) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1996.0897 · Cited by 6,763
Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy
Kellenberger, E., Rodrigo, J., Muller, P., & Rognan, D. (2004) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20149 · Cited by 577
Cited by
Software for molecular docking: a review
Pagadala, N. S., Syed, K., & Tuszynski, J. (2017) · Biophysical Reviews · doi:10.1007/s12551-016-0247-1 · Cited by 1,522
Protein–Ligand Scoring with Convolutional Neural Networks
Ragoza, M., Hochuli, J., Idrobo, E., Sunseri, J., & Koes, D. R. (2017) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00740 · Cited by 774
Key Topics in Molecular Docking for Drug Design
Torres, P. H. M., Sodero, A. C. R., Jofily, P., & Silva-Jr, F. P. (2019) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms20184574 · Cited by 641
Chen, Y.-C. (2015) · Trends in Pharmacological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tips.2014.12.001 · Cited by 611
Delfosse, V., Grimaldi, M., Pons, J.-L., Boulahtouf, A., le Maire, A., Cavailles, V., Labesse, G., Bourguet, W., & Balaguer, P. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1203574109 · Cited by 405
Metadata
- Authors
- Korb, O., Stützle, T., & Exner, T. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2009-01-06
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 84-96
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- OpenAlex
- W1988437166
- Cited by
- 1,349
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 31.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Empirical Scoring Functions for Advanced Protein−Ligand Docking with PLANTS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ci800298z
- The paper
- Korb, O., Stützle, T., & Exner, T. E. (2009). Empirical Scoring Functions for Advanced Protein−Ligand Docking with PLANTS. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci800298z
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.