The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Large-Scale Validation of a Quantum Mechanics Based Scoring Function: Predicting the Binding Affinity and the Binding Mode of a Diverse Set of Protein−Ligand Complexes
Abstract
Computational methods to calculate binding affinity in protein-ligand interaction are of immense interest because of obvious practical applications in structure-based drug design. Scoring functions attempt to calculate the variation in binding affinity of ligands-inhibitors bound to protein targets at various levels of theory. In this study we use semiempirical quantum mechanics to design a scoring function that can calculate the electrostatic interactions and solvation free energy expected during complexation. This physically based approach has the ability to capture binding affinity trends in a diverse range of protein-ligand complexes. We also show the predictive power of this scoring function within protein targets and its ability to score ligand poses docked to a protein target. We also demonstrate the ability of this scoring function to discriminate between native and decoy poses and highlight the crucial role played by electrostatic interactions in molecular recognition. Finally we compare the performance of our scoring function with other available scoring functions in the literature.
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
Drug Delivery Systems: Entering the Mainstream
Allen, T. M., & Cullis, P. R. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1095833 · Cited by 4,552
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
Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking.
Wang, R., Lu, Y., & Wang, S. (2003) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0203783 · Cited by 849
Multiple diverse ligands binding at a single protein site: A matter of pre‐existing populations
Ma, B., Shatsky, M., Wolfson, H. J., & Nussinov, R. (2002) · Protein Science · doi:10.1110/ps.21302 · Cited by 420
Cited by
Wang, Z., Sun, H., Yao, X., Li, D., Xu, L., Li, Y., Tian, S., & Hou, T. (2016) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c6cp01555g · Cited by 946
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
Extending the Power of Quantum Chemistry to Large Systems with the Fragment Molecular Orbital Method
Fedorov, D. G., & Kitaura, K. (2007) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry A · doi:10.1021/jp0716740 · Cited by 567
Christensen, A. S., Kubař, T., Cui, Q., & Elstner, M. (2016) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00584 · Cited by 446
Guedes, I. A., Pereira, F. S. S., & Dardenne, L. E. (2018) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2018.01089 · Cited by 331
Metadata
- Authors
- Raha, K., & Merz, K. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2005-06-21
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 4558-4575
- ISSN
- 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-4804
- OpenAlex
- W2067484324
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 10.67
- 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.