Cited by 290Computational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Structure and DynamicsAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

A Force Field with Discrete Displaceable Waters and Desolvation Entropy for Hydrated Ligand Docking

Open access
Forli, Stefano, Olson, Arthur J.·2012·Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Abstract

In modeling ligand-protein interactions, the representation and role of water are of great importance. We introduce a force field and hydration docking method that enables the automated prediction of waters mediating the binding of ligands with target proteins. The method presumes no prior knowledge of the apo or holo protein hydration state and is potentially useful in the process of structure-based drug discovery. The hydration force field accounts for the entropic and enthalpic contributions of discrete waters to ligand binding, improving energy estimation accuracy and docking performance. The force field has been calibrated and validated on a total of 417 complexes (197 training set; 220 test set), then tested in cross-docking experiments, for a total of 1649 ligand-protein complexes evaluated. The method is computationally efficient and was used to model up to 35 waters during docking. The method was implemented and tested using unaltered AutoDock4 with new force field tables.

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/jm2005145

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Dockings using the hydrated ligand protocol consistently predicted that waters would be displaced.

    “In fact, dockings performed with the hydrated ligand protocol30 consistently predicted the displacement of the waters.”

    From AutoDock4<sub>Zn</sub>: An Improved AutoDock Force Field for Small-Molecule Docking to Zinc Metalloproteins (2014) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Results and discussion > Case studies passage reports that hydrated docking predicted displacement of water A for one ligand and conserved water B. It supports the protocol's ability to predict displacement, but not that its dockings consistently predicted displacement of the waters; the paper says the outcome depends on the ligand. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In AutoDock4, explicit water molecules of the first hydration shell are represented as uncharged spheres directly attached to the ligand, whereas a hydration force field accounting for entropic and enthalpic contributions automatically predicts their potential in mediating protein-ligand interactions.

    “In AutoDock4, explicit water molecules of the first hydration shell as represented as uncharged spheres directly attached to the ligand, whereas a hydration force field accounting for the entropic and enthalpic contributions, automatically predicts their potential in mediating protein–ligand interactions (Forli and Olson, 2012).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [34]Nobeli I Price SL Lommerse JPM Taylor R Hydrogen bonding properties of oxygen and nitrogen acceptors in aromatic heterocycles Journal of Computational Chemistry 1997 18 2060 2074
  2. [35]Lommerse JPM Price SL Taylor R Hydrogen bonding of carbonyl, ether, and ester oxygen atoms with alkanol hydroxyl groups Journal of Computational Chemistry 1997 18 757 774

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Forli, S., & Olson, A. J.
Affiliations
Scripps Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Olson, Arthur J.
Venue
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
Published
2012-01-13
Volume
55
Issue
2
Pages
623-638
ISSN
  • 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-4804
OpenAlex
W1997409847
Cited by
290
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Medicinal Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Public Health Service (R01 GMO69832)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM069832)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
Keywords
protein-ligand docking, structure-based drug design, force field calibration
MeSH terms
Binding Sites, Computer Simulation, Ligands, Models, Molecular, Proteins, Water, Molecular Structure, Crystallography, X-Ray, Entropy, Coordination Complexes

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