130
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Variability in docking success rates due to dataset preparation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The results of cognate docking with the prepared Astex dataset provided by the organizers of the “Docking and Scoring: A Review of Docking Programs” session at the 241st ACS national meeting are presented. The MOE software with the newly developed GBVI/WSA dG scoring function is used throughout the study. For 80 % of the Astex targets, the MOE docker produces a top-scoring pose within 2 Å of the X-ray structure. For 91 % of the targets a pose within 2 Å of the X-ray structure is produced in the top 30 poses. Docking failures, defined as cases where the top scoring pose is greater than 2 Å from the experimental structure, are shown to be largely due to the absence of bound waters in the source dataset, highlighting the need to include these and other crucial information in future standardized sets. Docking success is shown to depend heavily on data preparation. A “dataset preparation” error of 0.5 kcal/mol is shown to cause fluctuations of over 20 % in docking success rates.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Benchmarking sets for molecular docking.

          Ligand enrichment among top-ranking hits is a key metric of molecular docking. To avoid bias, decoys should resemble ligands physically, so that enrichment is not simply a separation of gross features, yet be chemically distinct from them, so that they are unlikely to be binders. We have assembled a directory of useful decoys (DUD), with 2950 ligands for 40 different targets. Every ligand has 36 decoy molecules that are physically similar but topologically distinct, leading to a database of 98,266 compounds. For most targets, enrichment was at least half a log better with uncorrected databases such as the MDDR than with DUD, evidence of bias in the former. These calculations also allowed 40x40 cross-docking, where the enrichments of each ligand set could be compared for all 40 targets, enabling a specificity metric for the docking screens. DUD is freely available online as a benchmarking set for docking at http://blaster.docking.org/dud/.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions.

            Docking is a computational technique that samples conformations of small molecules in protein binding sites; scoring functions are used to assess which of these conformations best complements the protein binding site. An evaluation of 10 docking programs and 37 scoring functions was conducted against eight proteins of seven protein types for three tasks: binding mode prediction, virtual screening for lead identification, and rank-ordering by affinity for lead optimization. All of the docking programs were able to generate ligand conformations similar to crystallographically determined protein/ligand complex structures for at least one of the targets. However, scoring functions were less successful at distinguishing the crystallographic conformation from the set of docked poses. Docking programs identified active compounds from a pharmaceutically relevant pool of decoy compounds; however, no single program performed well for all of the targets. For prediction of compound affinity, none of the docking programs or scoring functions made a useful prediction of ligand binding affinity.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The generalized Born/volume integral implicit solvent model: estimation of the free energy of hydration using London dispersion instead of atomic surface area.

              A new generalized Born model for estimating the free energy of hydration is presented. The new generalized Born/volume integral (GB/VI) estimates the free energy of hydration as a classical electrostatic energy plus a cavitation energy that is not based upon atomic surface area (SA) used in GB/SA hydration models but on a VI London dispersion energy estimated from quantities already calculated in the classical electrostatic energy. The (relatively few) GB/VI model parameters are fitted to experimental data, and parameterizations for two different atomic partial charge models are presented. Comparison of the calculated and experimental free energies of hydration for 560 small molecules (both neutral and charged) shows good agreement (r(2) = 0.94). (c) 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +1-514-7311167 , +1-514-8749538 , ccorbeil@chemcomp.com , www.chemcomp.com
                Journal
                J Comput Aided Mol Des
                J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des
                Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design
                Springer Netherlands (Dordrecht )
                0920-654X
                1573-4951
                8 May 2012
                8 May 2012
                June 2012
                : 26
                : 6
                : 775-786
                Affiliations
                Chemical Computing Group, Suite 910, 1010 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H3A 2R7 Canada
                Article
                9570
                10.1007/s10822-012-9570-1
                3397132
                22566074
                19f662a3-b18c-4d8b-9a11-1fb5b353b5a1
                © The Author(s) 2012
                History
                : 23 December 2011
                : 3 April 2012
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

                Biomedical engineering
                docking,errors,scoring,gbvi/wsa,moe
                Biomedical engineering
                docking, errors, scoring, gbvi/wsa, moe

                Comments

                Comment on this article