Cited by 513Computational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Structure and DynamicsProtein Interaction Studies and Fluorescence Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 132 of the 133 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein-ligand docking: recent advances and future directions.

Open access

Huang, Sheng-You, Grinter, Sam Z., Zou, Xiaoqin·2010·Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics

DOI 10.1039/c0cp00151aPMC PMC11103779

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The scoring function is one of the most important components in structure-based drug design. Despite considerable success, accurate and rapid prediction of protein-ligand interactions is still a challenge in molecular docking. In this perspective, we have reviewed three basic types of scoring functions (force-field, empirical, and knowledge-based) and the consensus scoring technique that are used for protein-ligand docking. The commonly-used assessment criteria and publicly available protein-ligand databases for performance evaluation of the scoring functions have also been presented and discussed. We end with a discussion of the challenges faced by existing scoring functions and possible future directions for developing improved scoring functions.

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

Crossref · 10.1039/c0cp00151a

Cites

132 of 132 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.

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?

Self-check

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

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

The Protein Data Bank
Berman, H. M. (2000) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/28.1.235 · Cited by 40,196
Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy
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
The Cambridge Structural Database: a quarter of a million crystal structures and rising
Allen, F. H. (2002) · Acta Crystallographica Section B Structural Science · doi:10.1107/s0108768102003890 · Cited by 9,898
Electrostatics of nanosystems: Application to microtubules and the ribosome
Baker, N., Sept, D., Joseph, S., Holst, M., & McCammon, J. A. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.181342398 · Cited by 7,125
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
A new force field for molecular mechanical simulation of nucleic acids and proteins
Weiner, S. J., Kollman, P. A., Case, D. A., Singh, U. C., Ghio, C., Alagona, G., Profeta, S., & Weiner, P. K. (1984) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja00315a051 · Cited by 4,641
Iterative partial equalization of orbital electronegativity—a rapid access to atomic charges
Gasteiger, J., & Marsili, M. (1980) · Tetrahedron · doi:10.1016/0040-4020(80)80168-2 · Cited by 4,157
Semianalytical treatment of solvation for molecular mechanics and dynamics
Still, W. C., Tempczyk, A., Hawley, R. C., & Hendrickson, T. F. (1990) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja00172a038 · Cited by 3,653
An all atom force field for simulations of proteins and nucleic acids
Weiner, S. J., Kollman, P. A., Nguyen, D. T., & Case, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.540070216 · Cited by 3,450
A Fast Flexible Docking Method using an Incremental Construction Algorithm
Rarey, M., Kramer, B., Lengauer, T., & Klebe, G. (1996) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1996.0477 · Cited by 2,836
A semiempirical free energy force field with charge‐based desolvation
Huey, R., Morris, G. M., Olson, A. J., & Goodsell, D. S. (2007) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.20634 · Cited by 2,246
BindingDB: a web-accessible database of experimentally determined protein-ligand binding affinities
Liu, T., Lin, Y., Wen, X., Jorissen, R. N., & Gilson, M. K. (2006) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkl999 · Cited by 2,185
A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions
Warren, G. L., Andrews, C. W., Capelli, A., Clarke, B., LaLonde, J. M., Lambert, M. H., Lindvall, M., Nevins, N., Semus, S. F., Senger, S., et al. (2005) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm050362n · Cited by 1,889
ICM—A new method for protein modeling and design: Applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation
Abagyan, R. A., Totrov, M. M., & Kuznetsov, D. (1994) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.540150503 · Cited by 1,718
Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes
Eldridge, M., Murray, C. W., Auton, T. R., Paolini, G. V., & Mee, R. P. (1997) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1023/a:1007996124545 · Cited by 1,692
Signal detection theory and ROC analysis
Egan, J. P. (1975) · Academic Press eBooks · Cited by 1,659
Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: quasi-chemical approximation
Miyazawa, S., & Jernigan, R. L. (1985) · Macromolecules · doi:10.1021/ma00145a039 · Cited by 1,523
Surflex: Fully Automatic Flexible Molecular Docking Using a Molecular Similarity-Based Search Engine
Jain, A. N. (2003) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm020406h · Cited by 1,381
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
Molecular Dynamics: Survey of Methods for Simulating the Activity of Proteins
Adcock, S. A., & McCammon, J. A. (2006) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr040426m · Cited by 1,314
DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases
Ewing, T. J. A., Makino, S., Skillman, A. G., & Kuntz, I. D. (2001) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1023/a:1011115820450 · Cited by 1,188
Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction
Wang, R., Lai, L., & Wang, S. (2002) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1023/a:1016357811882 · Cited by 1,185
Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions
Gohlke, H., Hendlich, M., & Klebe, G. (2000) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1999.3371 · Cited by 1,182
The PDBbind Database: Collection of Binding Affinities for Protein−Ligand Complexes with Known Three-Dimensional Structures
Wang, R., Fang, X., Lu, Y., & Wang, S. (2004) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm030580l · Cited by 1,137
Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mena force
Sippl, M. J. (1990) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/s0022-2836(05)80269-4 · Cited by 1,068
A machine learning approach to predicting protein–ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking
Ballester, P. J., & Mitchell, J. B. O. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq112 · Cited by 1,015
The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure
B�hm, H.-J. (1994) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1007/bf00126743 · Cited by 1,013
A General and Fast Scoring Function for Protein−Ligand Interactions: A Simplified Potential Approach
Muegge, I., & Martin, Y. C. (1999) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm980536j · Cited by 1,008
Calculation of Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities
Gilson, M. K., & Zhou, H. (2007) · Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure · doi:10.1146/annurev.biophys.36.040306.132550 · Cited by 980
The GB/SA Continuum Model for Solvation. A Fast Analytical Method for the Calculation of Approximate Born Radii
Qiu, D., Shenkin, P. S., Hollinger, F. P., & Still, W. C. (1997) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry A · doi:10.1021/jp961992r · Cited by 964
Automated docking with grid‐based energy evaluation
Meng, E. C., Shoichet, B. K., & Kuntz, I. D. (1992) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.540130412 · Cited by 949
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
Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking.
Wang, R., Lu, Y., & Wang, S. (2003) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0203783 · Cited by 849
Molecular Recognition and Docking Algorithms
Brooijmans, N., & Kuntz, I. D. (2003) · Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure · doi:10.1146/annurev.biophys.32.110601.142532 · Cited by 812
Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1, evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations.
Bissantz, C., Folkers, G., & Rognan, D. (2000) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm001044l · Cited by 740
Use of MM-PBSA in Reproducing the Binding Free Energies to HIV-1 RT of TIBO Derivatives and Predicting the Binding Mode to HIV-1 RT of Efavirenz by Docking and MM-PBSA
Wang, J., Morin, P. E., Wang, W., & Kollman, P. A. (2001) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja003834q · Cited by 709
Accurate Prediction of the Relative Potencies of Members of a Series of Kinase Inhibitors Using Molecular Docking and MM-GBSA Scoring
Lyne, P. D., Lamb, M. L., & Saeh, J. C. (2006) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm060522a · Cited by 708
Pairwise solute descreening of solute charges from a dielectric medium
Hawkins, G. D., Cramer, C. J., & Truhlar, D. G. (1995) · Chemical Physics Letters · doi:10.1016/0009-2614(95)01082-k · Cited by 704
Consensus scoring: a method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins.
Charifson, P. S., Corkery, J. J., Murcko, M. A., & Walters, W. P. (1999) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm990352k · Cited by 698
Rapid grid‐based construction of the molecular surface and the use of induced surface charge to calculate reaction field energies: Applications to the molecular systems and geometric objects
Rocchia, W., Sridharan, S., Nicholls, A. O., Alexov, E. G., Chiabrera, A., & Honig, B. H. (2001) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.1161 · Cited by 687
Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming
Gehlhaar, D. K., Verkhivker, G. M., Rejto, P. A., Sherman, C. J., Fogel, D. R., Fogel, L. J., & Freer, S. T. (1995) · Chemistry & Biology · doi:10.1016/1074-5521(95)90050-0 · Cited by 684
Diverse, High-Quality Test Set for the Validation of Protein−Ligand Docking Performance
Hartshorn, M. J., Verdonk, M. L., Chessari, G., Brewerton, S. C., Mooij, W. T. M., Mortenson, P. N., & Murray, C. W. (2007) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm061277y · Cited by 639
Scoring noncovalent protein-ligand interactions: A continuous differentiable function tuned to compute binding affinities
Jain, A. N. (1996) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1007/bf00124474 · Cited by 609
Biomolecular Simulations: Recent Developments in Force Fields, Simulations of Enzyme Catalysis, Protein-Ligand, Protein-Protein, and Protein-Nucleic Acid Noncovalent Interactions
Wang, W., Donini, O., Reyes, C. M., & Kollman, P. A. (2001) · Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure · doi:10.1146/annurev.biophys.30.1.211 · Cited by 549
Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on a Diverse Test Set
Cheng, T., Li, X., Li, Y., Liu, Z., & Wang, R. (2009) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci9000053 · Cited by 525
Lead discovery using molecular docking
Shoichet, B. K., McGovern, S. L., Wei, B. Q., & Irwin, J. J. (2002) · Current Opinion in Chemical Biology · doi:10.1016/s1367-5931(02)00339-3 · Cited by 517
Binding of a Diverse Set of Ligands to Avidin and Streptavidin: An Accurate Quantitative Prediction of Their Relative Affinities by a Combination of Molecular Mechanics and Continuum Solvent Models
Kuhn, B., & Kollman, P. A. (2000) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm000241h · Cited by 506
Detailed Analysis of Scoring Functions for Virtual Screening
Ståhl, M., & Rarey, M. (2001) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0003992 · Cited by 490
Assessing Scoring Functions for Protein−Ligand Interactions
Ferrara, P., Gohlke, H., Price, D. J., Klebe, G., & Brooks, C. L. (2004) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm030489h · Cited by 488
Validation and Use of the MM-PBSA Approach for Drug Discovery
Kuhn, B., Gerber, P. R., Schulz‐Gasch, T., & Ståhl, M. (2005) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm049081q · Cited by 465
A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance
Perola, E., Walters, W. P., & Charifson, P. S. (2004) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20088 · Cited by 455
Development and validation of a modular, extensible docking program: DOCK 5
Moustakas, D. T., Lang, P. T., Pegg, S. C. ‐., Pettersen, E. F., Kuntz, I. D., Brooijmans, N., & Rizzo, R. C. (2006) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1007/s10822-006-9060-4 · Cited by 448
Improved recognition of native-like protein structures using a combination of sequence-dependent and sequence-independent features of proteins
Simons, K. T., Ruczinski, I., Kooperberg, C. L., Fox, B. A., Bystroff, C., & Baker, D. A. (1999) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0134(19990101)34:1 · Cited by 443
Medium- and Long-Range Interaction Parameters between Amino Acids for Predicting Three-Dimensional Structures of Proteins
Tanaka, S., & Scheraga, H. A. (1976) · Macromolecules · doi:10.1021/ma60054a013 · Cited by 437
Prediction of binding constants of protein ligands: A fast method for the prioritization of hits obtained from de novo design or 3D database search programs
Böhm, H. (1998) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1023/a:1007999920146 · Cited by 431
Statistical Potentials Extracted From Protein Structures: How Accurate Are They?
Thomas, P. D., & Dill, K. A. (1996) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1996.0175 · Cited by 425
Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: Considering protein structural variations in molecular docking
Huang, S., & Zou, X. (2006) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.21214 · Cited by 409
Consensus scoring for ligand/protein interactions
Clark, R. D., Strizhev, A., Leonard, J. M., Blake, J. F., & Matthew, J. B. (2002) · Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling · doi:10.1016/s1093-3263(01)00125-5 · Cited by 406
Generalized Born Model Based on a Surface Integral Formulation
Ghosh, A., Rapp, C. S., & Friesner, R. A. (1998) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/jp982533o · Cited by 386
General and targeted statistical potentials for protein–ligand interactions
Mooij, W. T. M., & Verdonk, M. L. (2005) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20588 · Cited by 369
An Alternative Method for the Evaluation of Docking Performance: RSR vs RMSD
Yusuf, D., Davis, A. M., Kleywegt, G. J., & Schmitt, S. (2008) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci800084x · Cited by 353
Recommendations for evaluation of computational methods
Jain, A. N., & Nicholls, A. O. (2008) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1007/s10822-008-9196-5 · Cited by 350
DrugScore CSD Knowledge-Based Scoring Function Derived from Small Molecule Crystal Data with Superior Recognition Rate of Near-Native Ligand Poses and Better Affinity Prediction
Velec, H. F. G., Gohlke, H., & Klebe, G. (2005) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm050436v · Cited by 347
Additivity principles in biochemistry.
Dill, K. A. (1997) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.272.2.701 · Cited by 347
A smooth permittivity function for Poisson–Boltzmann solvation methods
Grant, J., Pickup, B. T., & Nicholls, A. O. (2001) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.1032 · Cited by 342
An iterative knowledge‐based scoring function for protein–protein recognition
Huang, S., & Zou, X. (2008) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.21949 · Cited by 336
How Does Consensus Scoring Work for Virtual Library Screening? An Idealized Computer Experiment
Wang, R., & Wang, S. (2001) · Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · doi:10.1021/ci010025x · Cited by 317
PMF Scoring Revisited
Muegge, I. (2005) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm050038s · Cited by 317
A Knowledge-Based Energy Function for Protein−Ligand, Protein−Protein, and Protein−DNA Complexes
Zhang, C., Liu, S., Zhu, Q., & Zhou, Y. (2005) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm049314d · Cited by 291
How to Derive a Protein Folding Potential? A New Approach to an Old Problem
Mirny, L. A., & Shakhnovich, E. I. (1996) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1996.0704 · Cited by 267
SMoG: de Novo Design Method Based on Simple, Fast, and Accurate Free Energy Estimates. 1. Methodology and Supporting Evidence
DeWitte, R. S., & Shakhnovich, E. I. (1996) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja960751u · Cited by 264
New Class IV Charge Model for Extracting Accurate Partial Charges from Wave Functions
Li, J., Zhu, T., Cramer, C. J., & Truhlar, D. G. (1998) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry A · doi:10.1021/jp972682r · Cited by 260
Scoring functions for protein-ligand docking.
Bentham Science Publisher, B. S. P. (2006) · Current Protein & Peptide Science · doi:10.2174/138920306778559395 · Cited by 258
An iterative method for extracting energy-like quantities from protein structures.
Thomas, P. D., & Dill, K. A. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.21.11628 · Cited by 255
SCORE: A New Empirical Method for Estimating the Binding Affinity of a Protein-Ligand Complex
Wang, R., Liu, L., Lai, L., & Youqi, T. (1998) · Journal of Molecular Modeling · doi:10.1007/s008940050096 · Cited by 249
VALIDATE: A New Method for the Receptor-Based Prediction of Binding Affinities of Novel Ligands
Head, R. D., Smythe, M. L., Oprea, T. I., Waller, C. L., Green, S. M., & Marshall, G. R. (1996) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja9539002 · Cited by 247
A model binding site for testing scoring functions in molecular docking.
Wei, B. Q., Baase, W. A., Weaver, L. H., Matthews, B. W., & Shoichet, B. K. (2002) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/s0022-2836(02)00777-5 · Cited by 237
MM-GB/SA Rescoring of Docking Poses in Structure-Based Lead Optimization
Guimarães, C. R. W., & Cardozo, M. G. (2008) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci800004w · Cited by 222
An iterative knowledge‐based scoring function to predict protein–ligand interactions: I. Derivation of interaction potentials
Huang, S., & Zou, X. (2006) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.20504 · Cited by 215
Inclusion of Solvation in Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculations Using the Generalized-Born Model
Zou, X., Yaxiong, & Kuntz, I. D. (1999) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja984102p · Cited by 214
MedusaScore: An Accurate Force Field-Based Scoring Function for Virtual Drug Screening
Yin, S., Biedermannová, L., Vondrášek, J., & Dokholyan, N. V. (2008) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci8001167 · Cited by 212
Evaluating the Molecular Mechanics Poisson−Boltzmann Surface Area Free Energy Method Using a Congeneric Series of Ligands to p38 MAP Kinase
Pearlman, D. A. (2005) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm050306m · Cited by 193
BLEEP?potential of mean force describing protein-ligand interactions: I. Generating potential
Mitchell, J. B. O., Laskowski, R. A., Alex, A., & Thornton, J. M. (1999) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-987x(199908)20:11 · Cited by 187
Statistical potentials and scoring functions applied to protein–ligand binding
Gohlke, H., & Klebe, G. (2001) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/s0959-440x(00)00195-0 · Cited by 184
Binding MOAD, a high-quality protein ligand database
Benson, M. L., Smith, R. D., Khazanov, N. A., DIMCHEFF, B., Beaver, J., DRESSLAR, P., Nerothin, J., & Carlson, H. A. (2007) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkm911 · Cited by 181
Exhaustive docking of molecular fragments with electrostatic solvation
Majeux, N., Scarsi, M., Apostolakis, J., Ehrhardt, C., & Caflisch, A. (1999) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0134(19991001)37:1 · Cited by 175
Physics-Based Scoring of Protein−Ligand Complexes: Enrichment of Known Inhibitors in Large-Scale Virtual Screening
Huang, N., Kalyanaraman, C., Irwin, J. J., & Jacobson, M. P. (2005) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci0502855 · Cited by 175
Comparison of Consensus Scoring Strategies for Evaluating Computational Models of Protein−Ligand Complexes
Oda, A., Tsuchida, K., Takakura, T., Yamaotsu, N., & Hirono, S. (2005) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci050283k · Cited by 171
An iterative knowledge‐based scoring function to predict protein–ligand interactions: II. Validation of the scoring function
Huang, S., & Zou, X. (2006) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.20505 · Cited by 162
SMall Molecule Growth 2001 (SMoG2001): An Improved Knowledge-Based Scoring Function for Protein−Ligand Interactions
Ishchenko, A. V., & Shakhnovich, E. I. (2002) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0105833 · Cited by 157
Free energy calculations in rational drug design
Reddy, M. R., & Erion, M. D. (2001) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 154
Inclusion of Solvation and Entropy in the Knowledge-Based Scoring Function for Protein−Ligand Interactions
Huang, S., & Zou, X. (2010) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci9002987 · Cited by 143
Ligand−Protein DataBase: Linking Protein−Ligand Complex Structures to Binding Data
Roche, O., Kiyama, R., & Brooks, C. L. (2001) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm000467k · Cited by 132
Investigation of MM-PBSA Rescoring of Docking Poses
Thompson, D. C., Humblet, C. C., & Joseph‐McCarthy, D. (2008) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci700470c · Cited by 129
Scoring functions for protein–ligand interactions: a critical perspective
Schulz‐Gasch, T., & Ståhl, M. (2004) · Drug Discovery Today Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.ddtec.2004.08.004 · Cited by 127
Evaluation of PMF Scoring in Docking Weak Ligands to the FK506 Binding Protein
Muegge, I., Martin, Y. C., Hajduk, P. J., & Fesik, S. W. (1999) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm990073x · Cited by 125
Assessment of Docking Poses: Interactions-Based Accuracy Classification (IBAC) versus Crystal Structure Deviations
Kroemer, R. T., Vulpetti, A., McDonald, J. J., Rohrer, D. C., Trosset, J., Giordanetto, F., Cotesta, S., McMartin, C., Kihlén, M., & Stouten, P. F. W. (2004) · Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · doi:10.1021/ci049970m · Cited by 124
SFCscore: Scoring functions for affinity prediction of protein–ligand complexes
Sotriffer, C., Sanschagrin, P. C., Matter, H., & Klebe, G. (2008) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.22058 · Cited by 121
Morphological similarity: A 3D molecular similarity method correlated with protein-ligand recognition
Jain, A. N. (2000) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1023/a:1008100132405 · Cited by 116
Docking into Knowledge-Based Potential Fields: A Comparative Evaluation of DrugScore
Sotriffer, C., Gohlke, H., & Klebe, G. (2002) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm025507u · Cited by 104
Efficient molecular docking of NMR structures: Application to HIV‐1 protease
Huang, S., & Zou, X. (2006) · Protein Science · doi:10.1110/ps.062501507 · Cited by 103
Efficient Evaluation of Binding Free Energy Using Continuum Electrostatics Solvation
Huang, D., & Caflisch, A. (2004) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm049726m · Cited by 98
A New Concept for Multidimensional Selection of Ligand Conformations (MultiSelect) and Multidimensional Scoring (MultiScore) of Protein−Ligand Binding Affinities
Terp, G. E., Johansen, B. N., Christensen, I. T., & Jørgensen, F. S. (2001) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm001090l · Cited by 97
Protein Ligand Database (PLD): additional understanding of the nature and specificity of protein–ligand complexes
Puvanendrampillai, D., & Mitchell, J. B. O. (2003) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btg243 · Cited by 95
Contact area difference (CAD): a robust measure to evaluate accuracy of protein models
Abagyan, R. A., & Totrov, M. M. (1997) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1997.0994 · Cited by 95
AffinDB: a freely accessible database of affinities for protein-ligand complexes from the PDB
Block, P. C. (2005) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkj039 · Cited by 93
Supervised Consensus Scoring for Docking and Virtual Screening
Teramoto, R., & Fukunishi, H. (2007) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci6004993 · Cited by 89
Predicting Protein−Ligand Binding Affinities Using Novel Geometrical Descriptors and Machine-Learning Methods
Deng, W., Breneman, C. M., & Embrechts, M. J. (2004) · Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · doi:10.1021/ci034246+ · Cited by 88
Ranking poses in structure-based lead discovery and optimization: current trends in scoring function development.
Rajamani, R., & Good, A. C. (2007) · PubMed · Cited by 81
Self-consistently optimized energy functions for protein structure prediction by molecular dynamics
Koretke, K. K., Luthey-Schulten, Z. A., & Wolynes, P. G. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.6.2932 · Cited by 81
Discovery of Cell-Permeable Non-Peptide Inhibitors of β-Secretase by High-Throughput Docking and Continuum Electrostatics Calculations
Danzhi Huang, A., Lüthi, U., Kolb, P., Edler, K., Cecchini, M., Audetat, S., Barberis, A., & Caflisch, A. (2005) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm050499d · Cited by 80
Knowledge-based potentials--back to the roots.
Wa, K., & Sippl, M. J. (1998) · PubMed · Cited by 68
Evaluation of docking/scoring approaches: A comparative study based on MMP3 inhibitors
Ha, S., Andreani, R., Robbins, A. H., & Muegge, I. (2000) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1023/a:1008137707965 · Cited by 65
M-Score: A Knowledge-Based Potential Scoring Function Accounting for Protein Atom Mobility
Yang, C., Wang, R., & Wang, S. (2005) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm050043w · Cited by 63
GARD: A Generally Applicable Replacement for RMSD
Baber, J. C., Thompson, D. C., Cross, J. B., & Humblet, C. C. (2009) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci9001074 · Cited by 59
Automated docking of highly flexible ligands by genetic algorithms: A critical assessment
Cecchini, M., Kolb, P., Majeux, N., & Caflisch, A. (2003) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.10384 · Cited by 58
Pairwise GB/SA Scoring Function for Structure-based Drug Design
Liu, H., Kuntz, I. D., & Zou, X. (2004) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/jp0312518 · Cited by 55
Electrostatics of Ligand Binding: Parametrization of the Generalized Born Model and Comparison with the Poisson−Boltzmann Approach
Liu, H., & Zou, X. (2006) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/jp060334w · Cited by 52
GFscore: a general nonlinear consensus scoring function for high-throughput docking.
Betzi, S., Suhre, K., Chétrit, B., Guerlesquin, F., & Morelli, X. (2006) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci0600758 · Cited by 51
An Improved PMF Scoring Function for Universally Predicting the Interactions of a Ligand with Protein, DNA, and RNA
Zhao, X., Liu, X., Wang, Y., Chen, Z., Kang, L., Zhang, H., Luo, X., Zhu, W., Chen, K., Li, H., et al. (2008) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci7004719 · Cited by 50
Virtual high-throughput screening of molecular databases.
Seifert, M. H. J., Kraus, J., & Kramer, B. (2007) · PubMed · Cited by 48
SeleX-CS: A New Consensus Scoring Algorithm for Hit Discovery and Lead Optimization
Bar‐Haim, S., Aharon, A., Ben-Moshe, T., Marantz, Y., & Senderowitz, H. (2009) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci800335j · Cited by 40
AIScore — Chemically Diverse Empirical Scoring Function Employing Quantum Chemical Binding Energies of Hydrogen-Bonded Complexes
Raub, S., Steffen, A., Kämper, A., & Marian, C. M. (2008) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci7004669 · Cited by 40
A potential function for protein folding
Seetharamulu, P., & Crippen, G. M. (1991) · Journal of Mathematical Chemistry · doi:10.1007/bf01192576 · Cited by 35
The MPSim‐Dock hierarchical docking algorithm: Application to the eight trypsin inhibitor cocrystals
Cho, A. E., Wendel, J. A., Vaidehi, N., Kekenes-Huskey, P. M., Floriano, W. B., Maiti, P. K., & Goddard, W. A. (2004) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.20118 · Cited by 32
A Computational Model of Binding Thermodynamics: The Design of Cyclin-dependent Kinase 2 Inhibitors
Sims, P. A., Wong, C. F., & McCammon, J. A. (2003) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0205043 · Cited by 30
Knowledge-Based Energy Functions for Computational Studies of Proteins
Li, X., & Liang, J. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-68372-0_3 · Cited by 24
Protein fold recognition without Boltzmann statistics or explicit physical basis
Huber, T., & Torda, A. E. (1998) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.5560070115 · Cited by 24
Evaluation of a knowledge‐based potential of mean force for scoring docked protein–ligand complexes
Nobeli, I., Mitchell, J. B. O., Alex, A., & Thornton, J. M. (2001) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.1036 · Cited by 20
Knowledge Based Potentials: the Reverse Boltzmann Methodology, Virtual Screening and Molecular Weight Dependence
Konstantinou-Kirtay, C., Mitchell, J. B. O., & Lumley, J. A. (2005) · QSAR & Combinatorial Science · doi:10.1002/qsar.200430926 · Cited by 16
Multiscale Generalized Born Modeling of Ligand Binding Energies for Virtual Database Screening
Liu, H., Grinter, S. Z., & Zou, X. (2009) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/jp901212t · Cited by 15
Untitled work
(1998) · doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-987x(19981115)19:14

Research works printed but not linked: 7

Böhm, 2002, Rev. Comput. Chem., 18, 41
Seifert, 2007, Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel., 10, 298
Rajamani, 2007, Curr. Opin. Drug. Discov. Devel., 10, 308
Huang, 2006, J. Comput. Chem., 27, 1865
Mitchell, 1999, J. Comput. Chem., 20, 1177, 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199908)20:11<1177::AID-JCC8>3.0.CO;2-0 · DOI
Koppensteiner, 1998, Biochemistry (Moscow), 63, 247
Huang, 2010, Annu. Rep. Comput. Chem., 6, 281

Sorted by citations

Molecular Docking and Structure-Based Drug Design Strategies
Ferreira, L. L. G., dos Santos, R. N., Oliva, G., & Andricopulo, A. D. (2015) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules200713384 · Cited by 2,722
“Scoring functions are categorized in the three following groups: force-field-based, empirical, and knowledge-based functions [56].”
Background
Insights into Protein–Ligand Interactions: Mechanisms, Models, and Methods
Du, X., Li, Y., Xia, Y.-L., Ai, S.-M., Liang, J., Sang, P., Ji, X., & Liu, S.-Q. (2016) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms17020144 · Cited by 1,765
“Since empirical scoring functions comprise many energy terms, another challenge is how to avoid double-counting problems (over-fitting) [183].”
BackgroundMethod
Concepts of Artificial Intelligence for Computer-Assisted Drug Discovery
Yang, X. Y., Wang, Y., Byrne, R., Schneider, G., & Yang, S. (2019) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00728 · Cited by 1,079
Comprehensive Evaluation of Ten Docking Programs on a Diverse Set of Protein-Ligand Complexes: The Prediction Accuracy of Sampling Power and Scoring Power
Wang, Z., Sun, H., Yao, X., Li, D., Xu, L., Li, Y., Tian, S., & Hou, T. (2016) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c6cp01555g · Cited by 946
Role of computer-aided drug design in modern drug discovery
Macalino, S. J. Y., Gosu, V., Hong, S., & Choi, S. (2015) · Archives of Pharmacal Research · doi:10.1007/s12272-015-0640-5 · Cited by 762
“Frequently used scoring functions, as reported in several papers (Huang et al. 2010; Cheng et al. 2012; Lavecchia and Di Giovanni 2013; Liu and Wang 2015), are divided into three categories: (a) Force ﬁeld - based functions calculate binding afﬁnity derived from physical atomic contacts in the…”
Background

See all 513

Authors: Huang, S.-Y., Grinter, S. Z., & Zou, X.
Affiliations: University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author: Zou, Xiaoqin
ORCID: Huang, Sheng-You
Grinter, Sam Z.
Zou, Xiaoqin
Venue: Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics
Publisher: Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
Published: 2010
Volume: 12
Issue: 40
Pages: 12899
ISSN: 1463-9076 (ISSN-L)
1463-9084
DOI: 10.1039/c0cp00151a
PMC: PMC11103779
OpenAlex: W2038542598
Cited by: 508
References: 133
Citations by year: 2026: 27 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 20
FWCI: 1.66
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: green
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Locations: Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics (publishedVersion)
PubMed (publishedVersion)
PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders: National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R21GM088517)
Topics: Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Interaction Studies and Fluorescence Analysis
Keywords: protein-ligand docking, scoring functions, knowledge-based scoring, consensus scoring, structure-based drug design, protein-ligand binding affinity prediction, benchmarking database
MeSH terms: Algorithms, Computer Simulation, Ligands, Protein Binding, Proteins, Drug Design

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

Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein-ligand docking: recent advances and future directions.

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks