The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
DrugScore CSD Knowledge-Based Scoring Function Derived from Small Molecule Crystal Data with Superior Recognition Rate of Near-Native Ligand Poses and Better Affinity Prediction
Abstract
Following the formalism used for the development of the knowledge-based scoring function DrugScore, new distance-dependent pair potentials are obtained from nonbonded interactions in small organic molecule crystal packings. Compared to potentials derived from protein-ligand complexes, the better resolved small molecule structures provide relevant contact data in a more balanced distribution of atom types and produce potentials of superior statistical significance and more detailed shape. Applied to recognizing binding geometries of ligands docked into proteins, this new scoring function (DrugScore(CSD)) ranks the crystal structures of 100 protein-ligand complexes best among up to 100 generated decoy geometries in 77% of all cases. Accepting root-mean-square deviations (rmsd) of up to 2 angstroms from the native pose as well-docked solutions, a correct binding mode is found in 87% of the cases. This translates into an improvement of the new scoring function of 57% with respect to the retrieval of the crystal structure and 20% with respect to the identification of a well-docked ligand pose compared to the original Protein Data Bank-based DrugScore. In the analysis of decoy geometries of cross-docking studies, DrugScore(CSD) shows equivalent or increased performance compared to the original PDB-based DrugScore. Furthermore, DrugScore(CSD) predicts binding affinities convincingly. Reducing the set of docking solutions to examples that deviate increasingly from the native pose results in a loss of performance of DrugScore(CSD). This indicates that a necessary prerequisite to successfully resolving the scoring problem with a more discriminative scoring function is the generation of highly accurate ligand poses, which approximate the native pose to below 1 angstroms rmsd, in a docking run.
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
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
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
Ballester, P. J., & Mitchell, J. B. O. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq112 · Cited by 989
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
Moitessier, N., Englebienne, P., Lee, D., Lawandi, J., & Corbeil, C. R. (2008) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0707515 · Cited by 514
Huang, S.-Y., Grinter, S. Z., & Zou, X. (2010) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c0cp00151a · Cited by 508
Metadata
- Authors
- Velec, H. F. G., Gohlke, H., & Klebe, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2005-09-07
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 6296-6303
- ISSN
- 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-4804
- OpenAlex
- W2118587156
- Cited by
- 343
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.49
- 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: DrugScore CSD Knowledge-Based Scoring Function Derived from Small Molecule Crystal Data with Superior Recognition Rate of Near-Native Ligand Poses and Better Affinity Prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jm050436v
- The paper
- Velec, H. F. G., Gohlke, H., & Klebe, G. (2005). DrugScore CSD Knowledge-Based Scoring Function Derived from Small Molecule Crystal Data with Superior Recognition Rate of Near-Native Ligand Poses and Better Affinity Prediction. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm050436v
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.