The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Directory of useful decoys, enhanced (DUD-E): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking.
Open accessAbstract
A key metric to assess molecular docking remains ligand enrichment against challenging decoys. Whereas the directory of useful decoys (DUD) has been widely used, clear areas for optimization have emerged. Here we describe an improved benchmarking set that includes more diverse targets such as GPCRs and ion channels, totaling 102 proteins with 22886 clustered ligands drawn from ChEMBL, each with 50 property-matched decoys drawn from ZINC. To ensure chemotype diversity, we cluster each target's ligands by their Bemis-Murcko atomic frameworks. We add net charge to the matched physicochemical properties and include only the most dissimilar decoys, by topology, from the ligands. An online automated tool (http://decoys.docking.org) generates these improved matched decoys for user-supplied ligands. We test this data set by docking all 102 targets, using the results to improve the balance between ligand desolvation and electrostatics in DOCK 3.6. The complete DUD-E benchmarking set is freely available at http://dude.docking.org.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“The DUD-E dataset is an enhanced version of the original DUD set and has been widely used to train and validate scoring functions (Huang et al., 2006; Mysinger et al., 2012).”
From Empirical scoring functions for structure-based virtual screening: applications, critical aspects, and challenges (2018) · cites this paper as Mysinger et al., 2012
In the citing paper
“It is composed of 102 targets with corresponding active, inactive, marginal, and decoy compounds.”
From Empirical scoring functions for structure-based virtual screening: applications, critical aspects, and challenges (2018) · cites this paper as Mysinger et al., 2012
In the citing paper
“PDBbind (Liu et al., 2015), DUD-E (Mysinger et al., 2012), and DEKOIS 2.0 (Bauer et al., 2013) are examples of widely used benchmarks for evaluating scoring functions.”
From Empirical scoring functions for structure-based virtual screening: applications, critical aspects, and challenges (2018) · cites this paper as Mysinger et al., 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.
Citations
Cites
Berman, H. M. (2000) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/28.1.235 · Cited by 40,196
UniProt: the Universal Protein knowledgebase
Apweiler, R. (2003) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkh131 · Cited by 7,593
ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery
Gaulton, A., Bellis, L. J., Bento, A. P., Chambers, J., Davies, M., Hersey, A., Light, Y., McGlinchey, S., Michalovich, D., Al-Lazikani, B., et al. (2012) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkr777 · Cited by 4,382
Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications
Kitchen, D. B., Decornez, H. Y., Furr, J. R., & Bajorath, J. (2004) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd1549 · Cited by 4,354
ZINC − A Free Database of Commercially Available Compounds for Virtual Screening
Irwin, J. J., & Shoichet, B. K. (2005) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci049714+ · Cited by 4,058
Self-citationThe Properties of Known Drugs. 1. Molecular Frameworks
Bemis, G. W., & Murcko, M. A. (1996) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm9602928 · Cited by 2,501
Hawkins, P. C. D., Skillman, A. G., Warren, G. L., Ellingson, B. A., & Stahl, M. T. (2010) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci100031x · Cited by 1,666
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
Self-citationComparison of Shape-Matching and Docking as Virtual Screening Tools
Hawkins, P. C. D., Skillman, A. G., & Nicholls, A. O. (2006) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0603365 · Cited by 1,023
The maximal affinity of ligands
Kuntz, I. D., Chen, K., Sharp, K. A., & Kollman, P. A. (1999) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.9997 · Cited by 859
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AutoDock Vina 1.2.0: New Docking Methods, Expanded Force Field, and Python Bindings
Eberhardt, J., Santos‐Martins, D., Tillack, A. F., & Forli, S. (2021) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00203 · Cited by 8,292
ZINC 15 – Ligand Discovery for Everyone
Sterling, T., & Irwin, J. J. (2015) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00559 · Cited by 3,224
Self-citationMolecular Docking: Shifting Paradigms in Drug Discovery
Pinzi, L., & Rastelli, G. (2019) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms20184331 · Cited by 2,537
The rise of deep learning in drug discovery
Chen, H., Engkvist, O., Wang, Y., Olivecrona, M., & Blaschke, T. (2018) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2018.01.039 · Cited by 1,770
Molecular graph convolutions: moving beyond fingerprints
Kearnes, S., McCloskey, K., Berndl, M., Pande, V., & Riley, P. (2016) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1007/s10822-016-9938-8 · Cited by 1,631
Metadata
- Authors
- Mysinger, M. M., Carchia, M., Irwin, J. J., & Shoichet, B. K.
- Affiliations
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Corresponding author
- Irwin, John. J.
- Shoichet, Brian K.
- Venue
- Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2012-07-05
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 6582-6594
- ISSN
- 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-4804
- PMC
- PMC3405771
- OpenAlex
- W1968319881
- Semantic Scholar
- 3b2ffd1b7ce968924e9046b0a0ff3a1f2b033de9
- Cited by
- 2,412
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 231 · 2025: 285 · 2024: 283 · 2023: 243 · 2022: 279 · 2021: 247 · 2020: 207 · 2019: 162 · 2018: 123 · 2017: 96 · 2016: 101 · 2015: 77 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 52.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Medicinal Chemistry (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
- Keywords
- DUD-E, decoy generation, G protein-coupled receptors, ion channels, ligand clustering, net charge, electrostatics, ChEMBL, zinc, decoy database
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Ligands, Models, Molecular, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Proteins, Reference Standards, Cluster Analysis, Benchmarking, Drug Discovery
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
