ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2011
Robust scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions with quantum chemical charge models.
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- BONAFIDE: a Python framework for the calculation of local features for atoms and bonds in molecules.Journal of cheminformatics · 2026Article
- Review
- Assessing the accuracy of binding pose prediction for kinase proteins and 7-azaindole inhibitors: a study with AutoDock4, Vina, DOCK 6, and GNINA 1.0.RSC advances · 2025Article
- Covalent Docking to the Active Sites of Thiamine Diphosphate-Dependent Enzymes.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Examining Hemin and its Derivatives: Induction of Heme-Oxygenase-1 Activity and Oxidative Stress in Breast Cancer Cells through Collaborative Experimental Analysis and Molecular Dynamics Simulations.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2024Article
- Assessing How Residual Errors of Scoring Functions Correlate to Ligand Structural Features.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Ensemble learning from ensemble docking: revisiting the optimum ensemble size problem.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Computational/in silico methods in drug target and lead prediction.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2020Review
- Novel Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors Based on Uracil Moiety for Possible Treatment of Alzheimer Disease.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Hesperidin methyl chalcone interacts with NFκB Ser276 and inhibits zymosan-induced joint pain and inflammation, and RAW 264.7 macrophage activation.Inflammopharmacology · 2020Article
- ACID: a free tool for drug repurposing using consensus inverse docking strategy.Journal of cheminformatics · 2019Article
- Improving inverse docking target identification with Z-score selection.Chemical biology & drug design · 2019Article
- GPU Accelerated Quantum Virtual Screening: Application for the Natural Inhibitors of New Dehli Metalloprotein (NDM-1).Frontiers in chemistry · 2018Article
- Empirical Scoring Functions for Structure-Based Virtual Screening: Applications, Critical Aspects, and Challenges.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Review
- Reverse Screening Methods to Search for the Protein Targets of Chemopreventive Compounds.Frontiers in chemistry · 2018Review
- Docking-based inverse virtual screening: methods, applications, and challenges.Biophysics reports · 2018Review
- Improving the accuracy of high-throughput protein-protein affinity prediction may require better training data.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
- Correcting the impact of docking pose generation error on binding affinity prediction.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
- Genetic determinants of antithyroid drug-induced agranulocytosis by human leukocyte antigen genotyping and genome-wide association study.Nature communications · 2015Article
- Prediction of protein targets of kinetin using in silico and in vitro methods: a case study on spinach seed germination mechanism.Journal of chemical biology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression has been used widely for constructing the scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. However, OLS is very sensitive to the existence of outliers, and models constructed using it are easily affected by the outliers or even the choice of the data set. On the other hand, determination of atomic charges is regarded as of central importance, because the electrostatic interaction is known to be a key contributing factor for biomolecular association. In the development of the AutoDock4 scoring function, only OLS was conducted, and the simple Gasteiger method was adopted. It is therefore of considerable interest to see whether more rigorous charge models could improve the statistical performance of the AutoDock4 scoring function. In this study, we have employed two well-established quantum chemical approaches, namely the restrained electrostatic potential (RESP) and the Austin-model 1-bond charge correction (AM1-BCC) methods, to obtain atomic partial charges, and we have compared how different charge models affect the performance of AutoDock4 scoring functions. In combination with robust regression analysis and outlier exclusion, our new protein-ligand free energy regression model with AM1-BCC charges for ligands and Amber99SB charges for proteins achieve lowest root-mean-squared error of 1.637 kcal/mol for the training set of 147 complexes and 2.176 kcal/mol for the external test set of 1427 complexes. The assessment for binding pose prediction with the 100 external decoy sets indicates very high success rate of 87% with the criteria of predicted root-mean-squared deviation of less than 2 Å. The success rates and statistical performance of our robust scoring functions are only weakly class-dependent (hydrophobic, hydrophilic, or mixed).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.