The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lessons in Molecular Recognition: The Effects of Ligand and Protein Flexibility on Molecular Docking Accuracy
Abstract
The key to success for computational tools used in structure-based drug design is the ability to accurately place or "dock" a ligand in the binding pocket of the target of interest. In this report we examine the effect of several factors on docking accuracy, including ligand and protein flexibility. To examine ligand flexibility in an unbiased fashion, a test set of 41 ligand-protein cocomplex X-ray structures were assembled that represent a diversity of size, flexibility, and polarity with respect to the ligands. Four docking algorithms, DOCK, FlexX, GOLD, and CDOCKER, were applied to the test set, and the results were examined in terms of the ability to reproduce X-ray ligand positions within 2.0A heavy atom root-mean-square deviation. Overall, each method performed well (>50% accuracy) but for all methods it was found that docking accuracy decreased substantially for ligands with eight or more rotatable bonds. Only CDOCKER was able to accurately dock most of those ligands with eight or more rotatable bonds (71% accuracy rate). A second test set of structures was gathered to examine how protein flexibility influences docking accuracy. CDOCKER was applied to X-ray structures of trypsin, thrombin, and HIV-1-protease, using protein structures bound to several ligands and also the unbound (apo) form. Docking experiments of each ligand to one "average" structure and to the apo form were carried out, and the results were compared to docking each ligand back to its originating structure. The results show that docking accuracy falls off dramatically if one uses an average or apo structure. In fact, it is shown that the drop in docking accuracy mirrors the degree to which the protein moves upon ligand binding.
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
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
Cited by
Combining docking and molecular dynamic simulations in drug design
Alonso, H., Bliznyuk, A. A., & Gready, J. E. (2006) · Medicinal Research Reviews · doi:10.1002/med.20067 · Cited by 759
Validation of Molecular Docking Programs for Virtual Screening against Dihydropteroate Synthase
Hevener, K. E., Zhao, W., Ball, D. M., Babaoglu, K., Qi, J., White, S. W., & Lee, R. E. (2009) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci800293n · Cited by 668
Ramírez, D., & Caballero, J. (2018) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules23051038 · Cited by 624
Huang, S., & Zou, X. (2007) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.21214 · Cited by 401
Binding MOAD (Mother Of All Databases)
Hu, L., Benson, M. L., Smith, R. D., Lerner, M. G., & Carlson, H. A. (2005) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20512 · Cited by 328
Metadata
- Authors
- Erickson, J. A., Jalaie, M., Robertson, D. H., Lewis, R. A., & Vieth, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2003-12-02
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-55
- ISSN
- 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-4804
- OpenAlex
- W1971062326
- Cited by
- 394
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 21.85
- 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: Lessons in Molecular Recognition: The Effects of Ligand and Protein Flexibility on Molecular Docking Accuracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jm030209y
- The paper
- Erickson, J. A., Jalaie, M., Robertson, D. H., Lewis, R. A., & Vieth, M. (2004). Lessons in Molecular Recognition: The Effects of Ligand and Protein Flexibility on Molecular Docking Accuracy. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm030209y
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.