Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 286

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Automated Docking Screens: A Feasibility Study

Open access
Irwin, John J., Shoichet, Brian K., Mysinger, Michael M., Huang, Niu, Colizzi, Francesco, Wassam, Pascal, Cao, Yiqun·2009·Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Abstract

Molecular docking is the most practical approach to leverage protein structure for ligand discovery, but the technique retains important liabilities that make it challenging to deploy on a large scale. We have therefore created an expert system, DOCK Blaster, to investigate the feasibility of full automation. The method requires a PDB code, sometimes with a ligand structure, and from that alone can launch a full screen of large libraries. A critical feature is self-assessment, which estimates the anticipated reliability of the automated screening results using pose fidelity and enrichment. Against common benchmarks, DOCK Blaster recapitulates the crystal ligand pose within 2 A rmsd 50-60% of the time; inferior to an expert, but respectrable. Half the time the ligand also ranked among the top 5% of 100 physically matched decoys chosen on the fly. Further tests were undertaken culminating in a study of 7755 eligible PDB structures. In 1398 cases, the redocked ligand ranked in the top 5% of 100 property-matched decoys while also posing within 2 A rmsd, suggesting that unsupervised prospective docking is viable. DOCK Blaster is available at http://blaster.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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jm9006966

Cites

4 of 4 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 286

Metadata

Authors
Irwin, J. J., Shoichet, B. K., Mysinger, M. M., Huang, N., Colizzi, F., Wassam, P., & Cao, Y.
Venue
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
Published
2009-08-31
Volume
52
Issue
18
Pages
5712-5720
ISSN
  • 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-4804
OpenAlex
W2124074156
Cited by
286
References
4
FWCI
13.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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.