The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions
Abstract
Docking is a computational technique that samples conformations of small molecules in protein binding sites; scoring functions are used to assess which of these conformations best complements the protein binding site. An evaluation of 10 docking programs and 37 scoring functions was conducted against eight proteins of seven protein types for three tasks: binding mode prediction, virtual screening for lead identification, and rank-ordering by affinity for lead optimization. All of the docking programs were able to generate ligand conformations similar to crystallographically determined protein/ligand complex structures for at least one of the targets. However, scoring functions were less successful at distinguishing the crystallographic conformation from the set of docked poses. Docking programs identified active compounds from a pharmaceutically relevant pool of decoy compounds; however, no single program performed well for all of the targets. For prediction of compound affinity, none of the docking programs or scoring functions made a useful prediction of ligand binding affinity.
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
Friesner, R. A., Banks, J. L., Murphy, R. B., Halgren, T. A., Klicic, J. J., Mainz, D. T., Repasky, M. P., Knoll, E. H., Shelley, M., Perry, J. K., et al. (2004) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0306430 · Cited by 10,057
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
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
Bissantz, C., Folkers, G., & Rognan, D. (2000) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm001044l · Cited by 740
Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy
Kellenberger, E., Rodrigo, J., Muller, P., & Rognan, D. (2004) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20149 · Cited by 577
Cited by
Drug repurposing: progress, challenges and recommendations
Pushpakom, S., Iorio, F., Eyers, P. A., Escott, K. J., Hopper, S., Wells, A., Doig, A., Guilliams, T., Latimer, J., McNamee, C., et al. (2019) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd.2018.168 · Cited by 4,718
Software for molecular docking: a review
Pagadala, N. S., Syed, K., & Tuszynski, J. (2017) · Biophysical Reviews · doi:10.1007/s12551-016-0247-1 · Cited by 1,522
Role of computer-aided drug design in modern drug discovery
Macalino, S. J. Y., Gosu, V., Hong, S., & Choi, S. (2015) · Archives of Pharmacal Research · doi:10.1007/s12272-015-0640-5 · Cited by 762
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Warren, G. L., Andrews, C. W., Capelli, A.-M., Clarke, B., LaLonde, J., Lambert, M. H., Lindvall, M., Nevins, N., Semus, S. F., Senger, S., Tedesco, G., Wall, I. D., Woolven, J. M., Peishoff, C. E., & Head, M. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2005-08-13
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 5912-5931
- ISSN
- 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-4804
- OpenAlex
- W2121895929
- Cited by
- 1,814
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 66.21
- 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.
