Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23530568›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2013

Docking challenge: protein sampling and molecular docking performance.

Khaled M Elokely, Robert J Doerksen

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed
13.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 277 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Need for Continuing Blinded Pose- and Activity Prediction Benchmarks.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Variations of VEGFR2 Chemical Space: Stimulator and Inhibitory Peptides.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Evaluation of novel compounds as anti-bacterial or anti-virulence agents.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    Review
  20. Sampling and Scoring in Protein-Protein Docking.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article

17 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Khaled M ElokelyDepartment of Medicinal Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, USA.
Robert J Doerksen
University of Mississippi · US

Funding

RENOVATION OF FOURTH FLOOR OF FASER HALLC06RR014503 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI · PI WELLS, BARBARA G · 1999 to 1999
–
NCRR NIH HHS C06 RR014503NCRR NIH HHS C06 RR-14503-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational tools are essential in the drug design process, especially in order to take advantage of the increasing numbers of solved X-ray and NMR protein-ligand structures. Nowadays, molecular docking methods are routinely used for prediction of protein-ligand interactions and to aid in selecting potent molecules as a part of virtual screening of large databases. The improvements and advances in computational capacity in the past decade have allowed for further developments in molecular docking algorithms to address more complicated aspects such as protein flexibility. The effects of incorporation of active site water molecules and implicit or explicit solvation of the binding site are other relevant issues to be addressed in the docking procedures. Using the right docking algorithm at the right stage of virtual screening is most important. We report a staged study to address the effects of various aspects of protein flexibility and inclusion of active site water molecules on docking effectiveness to retrieve (and to be able to predict) correct ligand poses and to rank docked ligands in relation to their biological activity for CHK1, ERK2, LpxC, and UPA. We generated multiple conformers for the ligand and compared different docking algorithms that use a variety of approaches to protein flexibility, including rigid receptor, soft receptor, flexible side chains, induced fit, and multiple structure algorithms. Docking accuracy varied from 1% to 84%, demonstrating that the choice of method is important.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDatabases, PharmaceuticalDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalMolecular Docking SimulationProtein ConformationProteinsStructure-Activity RelationshipUser-Computer InterfaceProteins

Identifiers

PMID23530568
PMCPMC3755091
OpenAlexW2059921491

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.