The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Are Free Energy Calculations Useful in Practice? A Comparison with Rapid Scoring Functions for the p38 MAP Kinase Protein System
Open accessAbstract
Precise thermodynamic integration free energy simulations have been applied to a congeneric series of 16 inhibitors to the p38 MAP kinase protein for which the experimental binding data (IC(50)) is known. The relative free energy of binding for each compound has been determined. For comparison, the same series of compounds have also scored using the best rapid scoring functions used in database screening. From the results of these calculations, we find (1) that precise free energy simulations allow predictions that are reliable and in good agreement with experiment; (2) that predictions of lower reliability, but still in good qualitative agreement with experiment, can be obtained using the OWFEG free energy grid method, at a much lower computational cost; (3) and that other methods, not based on free energy simulations yield results in much poorer agreement with experiment. A new predictive index, which measures the reliability of a prediction method in the context of normal use, is defined and calculated for each scoring method. Predictive indices of 0.84, 0.56, 0.04, -0.05, and 0.25 are calculated for thermodynamic integration, OWFEG, ChemScore, PLPScore, and Dock Energy Score, respectively, where +1.0 is perfect correct prediction, -1.0 is perfect incorrect prediction, and 0.0 is random.
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
Charifson, P. S., Corkery, J. J., Murcko, M. A., & Walters, W. P. (1999) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm990352k · Cited by 698
Self-citation
Cited by
g_mmpbsa—A GROMACS Tool for High-Throughput MM-PBSA Calculations
Kumari, R., Kumar, R., Open Source Drug Discovery Consortium, & Lynn, A. (2014) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci500020m · Cited by 4,882
Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions
Halperin, I., Ma, B., Wolfson, H., & Nussinov, R. (2002) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.10115 · Cited by 1,294
Efficient Drug Lead Discovery and Optimization
Jorgensen, W. L. (2009) · Accounts of Chemical Research · doi:10.1021/ar800236t · Cited by 649
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
Validation and Use of the MM-PBSA Approach for Drug Discovery
Kuhn, B., Gerber, P., Schulz-Gasch, T., & Stahl, M. (2005) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm049081q · Cited by 462
Metadata
- Authors
- Pearlman, D. A., & Charifson, P. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2001-09-13
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 3417-3423
- ISSN
- 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-4804
- OpenAlex
- W2060002448
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.