Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 394

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

Erickson, Jon A., Jalaie, Mehran, Robertson, Daniel H., Lewis, Richard A., Vieth, Michal·2004·Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jm030209y

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 394

Metadata

Authors
Erickson, J. A., Jalaie, M., Robertson, D. H., Lewis, R. A., & Vieth, M.
Venue
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
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

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.