The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Virtual Screening Workflow Development Guided by the “Receiver Operating Characteristic” Curve Approach. Application to High-Throughput Docking on Metabotropic Glutamate Receptor Subtype 4
Open accessAbstract
The "receiver operating characteristic" (ROC) curve method is a well-recognized metric used as an objective way to evaluate the ability of a given test to discriminate between two populations. This facilitates decision-making in a plethora of fields in which a wrong judgment may have serious consequences including clinical diagnosis, public safety, travel security, and economic strategies. When virtual screening is used to speed-up the drug discovery process in pharmaceutical research, taking the right decision upon selecting or discarding a molecule prior to in vitro evaluation is of paramount importance. Characterizing both the ability of a virtual screening workflow to select active molecules and the ability to discard inactive ones, the ROC curve approach is well suited for this critical decision gate. As a case study, the first virtual screening workflow focused on metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 4 (mGlu4R) agonists is reported here. Six compounds out of 38 selected and tested in vitro were shown to have agonist activity on this target of therapeutic interest.
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
Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W., & Feeney, P. J. (1997) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0169-409x(96)00423-1 · Cited by 11,385
Measuring the Accuracy of Diagnostic Systems
Swets, J. A. (1988) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3287615 · Cited by 10,058
Signal detection theory and psychophysics
Ingleby, J. D. (1967) · Journal of Sound and Vibration · doi:10.1016/0022-460x(67)90197-6 · Cited by 8,509
Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme
Matthews, B. W. (1975) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Protein Structure · doi:10.1016/0005-2795(75)90109-9 · Cited by 5,399
Willett, P., Barnard, J. M., & Downs, G. M. (1998) · Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · doi:10.1021/ci9800211 · Cited by 1,765
Structural basis of glutamate recognition by a dimeric metabotropic glutamate receptor
Kunishima, N., Shimada, Y., Tsuji, Y., Sato, T., Yamamoto, M., Kumasaka, T., Nakanishi, S., Jingami, H., & Morikawa, K. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35039564 · Cited by 1,249
Pharmacological agents acting at subtypes of metabotropic glutamate receptors
Schoepp, D. D., Jane, D. E., & Monn, J. A. (1999) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/s0028-3908(99)00092-1 · Cited by 1,060
LigandFit: a novel method for the shape-directed rapid docking of ligands to protein active sites
Venkatachalam, C. M., Jiang, X., Oldfield, T., & Waldman, M. (2003) · Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling · doi:10.1016/s1093-3263(02)00164-x · Cited by 1,002
Walters, W. P., Stahl, M. T., & Murcko, M. A. (1998) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/s1359-6446(97)01163-x · Cited by 991
Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening
Bajorath, J. (2002) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd941 · Cited by 930
Cited by
Benchmarking sets for molecular docking.
Huang, N., Shoichet, B. K., & Irwin, J. J. (2006) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0608356 · Cited by 1,318
Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the “Early Recognition” Problem
Truchon, J.-F., & Bayly, C. I. (2007) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci600426e · Cited by 874
Computer-aided drug discovery and development (CADDD): in silico-chemico-biological approach
Kapetanovic, I. M. (2008) · Chemico-Biological Interactions · doi:10.1016/j.cbi.2006.12.006 · Cited by 662
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
Key Topics in Molecular Docking for Drug Design
Torres, P. H. M., Sodero, A. C. R., Jofily, P., & Silva-Jr, F. P. (2019) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms20184574 · Cited by 641
Comparison of Topological, Shape, and Docking Methods in Virtual Screening
McGaughey, G. B., Sheridan, R. P., Bayly, C. I., Culberson, J. C., Kreatsoulas, C., Lindsley, S., Maiorov, V., Truchon, J.-F., & Cornell, W. D. (2007) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci700052x · Cited by 417
Ain, Q. U., Aleksandrova, A., Roessler, F. D., & Ballester, P. J. (2015) · WIREs Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.1225 · Cited by 357
Next generation 3D pharmacophore modeling
Schaller, D., Šribar, D., Noonan, T., Deng, L., Nguyen, T. N., Pach, S., Machalz, D., Bermudez, M., & Wolber, G. (2020) · WIREs Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.1468 · Cited by 269
Beware of machine learning-based scoring functions-on the danger of developing black boxes.
Gabel, J., Desaphy, J., & Rognan, D. (2014) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci500406k · Cited by 143
Damm-Ganamet, K. L., Smith, R. D., Dunbar, J. B., Stuckey, J. A., & Carlson, H. A. (2013) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci400025f · Cited by 133
Targeted scoring functions for virtual screening.
Seifert, M. H. J. (2009) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2009.03.013 · Cited by 76
The effect of ligand-based tautomer and protomer prediction on structure-based virtual screening.
Kalliokoski, T., Salo, H. S., Lahtela-Kakkonen, M., & Poso, A. (2009) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci900364w · Cited by 66
Kaserer, T., Temml, V., Kutil, Z., Vanek, T., Landa, P., & Schuster, D. (2015) · European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.ejmech.2015.04.017 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Triballeau, N., Acher, F., Brabet, I., Pin, J.-P., & Bertrand, H.-O.
- Venue
- Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2005-03-08
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 2534-2547
- ISSN
- 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-4804
- OpenAlex
- W2014276094
- Cited by
- 631
- References
- 51
- FWCI
- 20.08
- 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.
