ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2012
A reverse combination of structure-based and ligand-based strategies for virtual screening.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A new approach is presented that combines structure- and ligand-based virtual screening in a reverse way. Opposite to the majority of the methods, a docking protocol is first employed to prioritize small ligands ("fragments") that are subsequently used as queries to search for similar larger ligands in a database. For a given chemical library, a three-step strategy is followed consisting of (1) contraction into a representative, non-redundant, set of fragments, (2) selection of the three best-scoring fragments docking into a given macromolecular target site, and (3) expansion of the fragments' structures back into ligands by using them as queries to search the library by means of fingerprint descriptions and similarity criteria. We tested the performance of this approach on a collection of fragments and ligands found in the ZINC database and the directory of useful decoys, and compared the results with those obtained using a standard docking protocol. The new method provided better overall results and was several times faster. We also studied the chemical diversity that both methods cover using an in-house compound library and concluded that the novel approach performs similarly but at a much smaller computational cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22395903What 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.