Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 182

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scaffold Hopping through Virtual Screening Using 2D and 3D Similarity Descriptors: Ranking, Voting, and Consensus Scoring

Zhang, Qiang, Muegge, Ingo·2006·Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Abstract

The ability to find novel bioactive scaffolds in compound similarity-based virtual screening experiments has been studied comparing Tanimoto-based, ranking-based, voting, and consensus scoring protocols. Ligand sets for seven well-known drug targets (CDK2, COX2, estrogen receptor, neuraminidase, HIV-1 protease, p38 MAP kinase, thrombin) have been assembled such that each ligand represents its own unique chemotype, thus ensuring that each similarity recognition event between ligands constitutes a scaffold hopping event. In a series of virtual screening studies involving 9969 MDDR compounds as negative controls it has been found that atom pair descriptors and 3D pharmacophore fingerprints combined with ranking, voting, and consensus scoring strategies perform well in finding novel bioactive scaffolds. In addition, often superior performance has been observed for similarity-based virtual screening compared to structure-based methods. This finding suggests that information about a target obtained from known bioactive ligands is as valuable as knowledge of the target structures for identifying novel bioactive scaffolds through virtual screening.

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/jm050468i

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 182

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, Q., & Muegge, I.
Venue
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
Published
2006-02-04
Volume
49
Issue
5
Pages
1536-1548
ISSN
  • 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-4804
OpenAlex
W1974240614
Cited by
182
References
2
FWCI
20.16
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.