Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20812324›Full record

ArticleJournal of computational chemistry2011

VoteDock: consensus docking method for prediction of protein-ligand interactions.

Dariusz Plewczynski, Michał Łaźniewski, Marcin von Grotthuss, Leszek Rychlewski, Krzysztof Ginalski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computational chemistry, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Multi-target Phenylpropanoids Against Epilepsy.Current neuropharmacology · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Application of MM-PBSA Methods in Virtual Screening.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Key Topics in Molecular Docking for Drug Design.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Charting a Path to Success in Virtual Screening.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Computational methods in drug discovery.Pharmacological reviews · 2014
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Dariusz PlewczynskiInterdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling, University of Warsaw, Pawinskiego 5a Street, 02-106 Warsaw, Poland. darman@icm.edu.pl
Michał Łaźniewski
Marcin von Grotthuss
Leszek Rychlewski
Krzysztof Ginalski

Funding

High-Accuracy Protein Models Derived from Lower Resolution DataR01GM081680 · NIGMS · IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI KLOCZKOWSKI, ANDRZEJ · 2007 to 2009
$763k
NIGMS NIH HHS 1R01GM081680-01NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM081680
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular recognition plays a fundamental role in all biological processes, and that is why great efforts have been made to understand and predict protein-ligand interactions. Finding a molecule that can potentially bind to a target protein is particularly essential in drug discovery and still remains an expensive and time-consuming task. In silico, tools are frequently used to screen molecular libraries to identify new lead compounds, and if protein structure is known, various protein-ligand docking programs can be used. The aim of docking procedure is to predict correct poses of ligand in the binding site of the protein as well as to score them according to the strength of interaction in a reasonable time frame. The purpose of our studies was to present the novel consensus approach to predict both protein-ligand complex structure and its corresponding binding affinity. Our method used as the input the results from seven docking programs (Surflex, LigandFit, Glide, GOLD, FlexX, eHiTS, and AutoDock) that are widely used for docking of ligands. We evaluated it on the extensive benchmark dataset of 1300 protein-ligands pairs from refined PDBbind database for which the structural and affinity data was available. We compared independently its ability of proper scoring and posing to the previously proposed methods. In most cases, our method is able to dock properly approximately 20% of pairs more than docking methods on average, and over 10% of pairs more than the best single program. The RMSD value of the predicted complex conformation versus its native one is reduced by a factor of 0.5 Å. Finally, we were able to increase the Pearson correlation of the predicted binding affinity in comparison with the experimental value up to 0.5.

Indexed as

Drug DesignSoftwareAlgorithmsDatabases, ProteinLigandsProtein BindingProteinsLigandsProteins

Identifiers

PMID20812324
PMCPMC4510457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.