Cited by 276Computational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Structure and DynamicsReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling

Information Decay in Molecular Docking Screens against Holo, Apo, and Modeled Conformations of Enzymes

McGovern, Susan L., Shoichet, Brian K.·2003·Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Abstract

Molecular docking uses the three-dimensional structure of a receptor to screen a small molecule database for potential ligands. The dependence of docking screens on the conformation of the binding site remains an open question. To evaluate the information loss that occurs as the active site conformation becomes less defined, a small molecule database was docked against the holo (ligand bound), apo, and homology modeled structures of 10 different enzyme binding sites. The holo and apo representations were crystallographic structures taken from the Protein Data Bank (PDB), and the homology-modeled structures were taken from the publicly available resource ModBase. The database docked was the MDL Drug Data Report (MDDR), a functionally annotated database of 95000 small molecules that contained at least 35 ligands for each of the 10 systems. In all sites, at least 99% of the molecules in the MDDR were treated as nonbinding decoys. For each system, the holo, apo, and modeled structures were used to screen the MDDR, and the ability of each structure to enrich the known ligands for that system over random selection was evaluated. The best overall enrichment was produced by the holo structure in seven systems, the apo structure in two systems, and the modeled structure in one system. These results suggest that the performance of the docking calculation is affected by the particular representation of the receptor used in the screen, and that the holo structure is the one most likely to yield the best discrimination between known ligands and decoy molecules, but important exceptions to this rule also emerge from this study. Although each of the holo, apo, and modeled conformations led to enrichment of known ligands in all systems, the enrichment did not always rise to a level judged to be sufficient to justify the effort of a docking screen. Using a 20-fold enrichment of known ligands over random selection as a rough guideline for what might be enough to justify a docking screen, the holo conformation of the enzyme met this criterion in eight of 10 sites, whereas the apo conformation met this criterion in only two sites and the modeled conformation in three.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jm0300330

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The accuracy of binding geometries predicted by molecular docking to homology models strongly depends on the quality of the model, particularly in the binding site.

    “The accuracy of the binding geometries predicted by molecular docking to homology models strongly depends on the quality of the model, particularly in the binding site22,40,41.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McGovern, S. L., & Shoichet, B. K.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Shoichet, Brian K.
Venue
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
Published
2003-06-05
Volume
46
Issue
14
Pages
2895-2907
ISSN
  • 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-4804
OpenAlex
W2145722722
Cited by
276
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 13
FWCI
11.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Medicinal Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32 GM 08061, GM59957, R01GM059957, T32GM008061)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Keywords
information decay, apo conformation, homology modeling, decoy discrimination
MeSH terms
Animals, Apoenzymes, Binding Sites, Enzymes, Humans, Ligands, Models, Molecular, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Crystallography, X-Ray, Holoenzymes, Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Databases, Protein

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