Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22366955›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2012

Blind prediction of host-guest binding affinities: a new SAMPL3 challenge.

Hari S Muddana, C Daniel Varnado, Christopher W Bielawski, Adam R Urbach, Lyle Isaacs, Matthew T Geballe, Michael K Gilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing 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

84 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Tuning Potential Functions to Host-Guest Binding Data.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. An overview of the SAMPL8 host-guest binding challenge.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Evaluation of log P, pKJournal of computer-aided molecular design · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Hari S MuddanaSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, Room# 3224, La Jolla, CA 92093-0736, USA.
C Daniel Varnado
Christopher W Bielawski
Adam R Urbach
Lyle Isaacs
Matthew T Geballe
Michael K Gilson

Funding

THEORY AND MODELING OF NONCOVALENT BINDINGR01GM061300 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MD BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE · PI GILSON, MICHAEL K. · 2000 to 2021
$7.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM61300NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM061300
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The computational prediction of protein-ligand binding affinities is of central interest in early-stage drug-discovery, and there is a widely recognized need for improved methods. Low molecular weight receptors and their ligands--i.e., host-guest systems--represent valuable test-beds for such affinity prediction methods, because their small size makes for fast calculations and relatively facile numerical convergence. The SAMPL3 community exercise included the first ever blind prediction challenge for host-guest binding affinities, through the incorporation of 11 new host-guest complexes. Ten participating research groups addressed this challenge with a variety of approaches. Statistical assessment indicates that, although most methods performed well at predicting some general trends in binding affinity, overall accuracy was not high, as all the methods suffered from either poor correlation or high RMS errors or both. There was no clear advantage in using explicit versus implicit solvent models, any particular force field, or any particular approach to conformational sampling. In a few cases, predictions using very similar energy models but different sampling and/or free-energy methods resulted in significantly different results. The protonation states of one host and some guest molecules emerged as key uncertainties beyond the choice of computational approach. The present results have implications for methods development and future blind prediction exercises.

Indexed as

Binding SitesComputer SimulationProtein BindingDatabases, ProteinDrug DiscoveryEntropyHumansLigandsMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyModels, MolecularMolecular ConformationMolecular WeightProteinsSolventsThermodynamicsLigandsProteinsSolvents

Identifiers

PMID22366955
PMCPMC3383923

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.