Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,007

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

A General and Fast Scoring Function for Protein−Ligand Interactions: A Simplified Potential Approach

Muegge, Ingo, Martin, Yvonne C.·1999·Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Abstract

A fast, simplified potential-based approach is presented that estimates the protein-ligand binding affinity based on the given 3D structure of a protein-ligand complex. This general, knowledge-based approach exploits structural information of known protein-ligand complexes extracted from the Brookhaven Protein Data Bank and converts it into distance-dependent Helmholtz free interaction energies of protein-ligand atom pairs (potentials of mean force, PMF). The definition of an appropriate reference state and the introduction of a correction term accounting for the volume taken by the ligand were found to be crucial for deriving the relevant interaction potentials that treat solvation and entropic contributions implicitly. A significant correlation between experimental binding affinities and computed score was found for sets of diverse protein-ligand complexes and for sets of different ligands bound to the same target. For 77 protein-ligand complexes taken from the Brookhaven Protein Data Bank, the calculated score showed a standard deviation from observed binding affinities of 1.8 log Ki units and an R2 value of 0.61. The best results were obtained for the subset of 16 serine protease complexes with a standard deviation of 1.0 log Ki unit and an R2 value of 0.86. A set of 33 inhibitors modeled into a crystal structure of HIV-1 protease yielded a standard deviation of 0.8 log Ki units from measured inhibition constants and an R2 value of 0.74. In contrast to empirical scoring functions that show similar or sometimes better correlation with observed binding affinities, our method does not involve deriving specific parameters that fit the observed binding affinities of protein-ligand complexes of a given training set. We compared the performance of the PMF score, Böhm's score (LUDI), and the SMOG score for eight different test sets of protein-ligand complexes. It was found that for the majority of test sets the PMF score performs best. The strength of the new approach presented here lies in its generality as no knowledge about measured binding affinities is needed to derive atomic interaction potentials. The use of the new scoring function in docking studies is outlined.

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/jm980536j

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,007

Metadata

Authors
Muegge, I., & Martin, Y. C.
Venue
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
Published
1999-02-24
Volume
42
Issue
5
Pages
791-804
ISSN
  • 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-4804
OpenAlex
W2012084558
Cited by
1,007
References
2
FWCI
31.43
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: A General and Fast Scoring Function for Protein−Ligand Interactions: A Simplified Potential Approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jm980536j
The paper
Muegge, I., & Martin, Y. C. (1999). A General and Fast Scoring Function for Protein−Ligand Interactions: A Simplified Potential Approach. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm980536j

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.