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
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.
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.
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
Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking 1 1Edited by F. E. Cohen
Jones, G., Willett, P., Glen, R. C., Leach, A. R., & Taylor, R. (1997) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1996.0897 · Cited by 6,763
Topology fingerprint approach to the inverse protein folding problem
Godzik, A., Kolinski, A., & Skolnick, J. (1992) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-2836(92)90693-e · Cited by 339
Cited by
Friesner, R. A., Banks, J. L., Murphy, R. B., Halgren, T. A., Klicic, J. J., Mainz, D. T., Repasky, M. P., Knoll, E. H., Shelley, M., Perry, J. K., et al. (2004) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0306430 · Cited by 10,057
Molecular Docking: A Powerful Approach for Structure-Based Drug Discovery
Meng, X.-Y., Zhang, H.-X., Mezei, M., & Cui, M. (2011) · Current Computer Aided-Drug Design · doi:10.2174/157340911795677602 · Cited by 3,771
Hou, T., Wang, J., Li, Y., & Wang, W. (2011) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci100275a · Cited by 2,773
SwissParam: A fast force field generation tool for small organic molecules
Zoete, V., Cuendet, M. A., Grosdidier, A., & Michielin, O. (2011) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.21816 · Cited by 2,370
The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates
Wang, R., Fang, X., Lu, Y., Yang, C.-Y., & Wang, S. (2005) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm048957q · Cited by 933
Metadata
- Authors
- Muegge, I., & Martin, Y. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- 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.