Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23746052›Full record

ArticleChemical biology & drug design2013

Evaluating the predictivity of virtual screening for ABL kinase inhibitors to hinder drug resistance.

Osman A B S M Gani, Dilip Narayanan, Richard A Engh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chemical biology & drug design, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Osman A B S M GaniThe Norwegian Structural Biology Center, Department of Chemistry, University of Tromsø, 9037, Tromsø, Norway.
Dilip Narayanan
Richard A Engh

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Virtual screening methods are now widely used in early stages of drug discovery, aiming to rank potential inhibitors. However, any practical ligand set (of active or inactive compounds) chosen for deriving new virtual screening approaches cannot fully represent all relevant chemical space for potential new compounds. In this study, we have taken a retrospective approach to evaluate virtual screening methods for the leukemia target kinase ABL1 and its drug-resistant mutant ABL1-T315I. 'Dual active' inhibitors against both targets were grouped together with inactive ligands chosen from different decoy sets and tested with virtual screening approaches with and without explicit use of target structures (docking). We show how various scoring functions and choice of inactive ligand sets influence overall and early enrichment of the libraries. Although ligand-based methods, for example principal component analyses of chemical properties, can distinguish some decoy sets from active compounds, the addition of target structural information via docking improves enrichment, and explicit consideration of multiple target conformations (i.e. types I and II) achieves best enrichment of active versus inactive ligands, even without assuming knowledge of the binding mode. We believe that this study can be extended to other therapeutically important kinases in prospective virtual screening studies.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArea Under CurveBinding SitesDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalDrug Resistance, NeoplasmEnzyme ActivationHumansLigandsMolecular Docking SimulationMutationPrincipal Component AnalysisProtein BindingProtein Kinase InhibitorsProtein Structure, TertiaryProto-Oncogene Proteins c-ablRecombinant ProteinsLigandsProtein Kinase InhibitorsProto-Oncogene Proteins c-ablRecombinant Proteinscheminformaticsdockingkinasevirtual screening

Identifiers

PMID23746052
PMCPMC4265857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.