Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23809015›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2013

Predicting binding affinity of CSAR ligands using both structure-based and ligand-based approaches.

Denis Fourches, Eugene Muratov, Feng Ding, Nikolay V Dokholyan, Alexander Tropsha

Abstract 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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Predicting Protein-Ligand Docking Structure with Graph Neural Network.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2022
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Trust, but Verify II: A Practical Guide to Chemogenomics Data Curation.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2016
    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

5 authors.

Denis FourchesLaboratory for Molecular Modeling, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA.
Eugene Muratov
Feng Ding
Nikolay V Dokholyan
Alexander Tropsha

Funding

PREDICTIVE QSAR MODELINGR01GM066940 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI TROPSHA, ALEXANDER · 2003 to 2011
$3.0M
Protein Misfolding and AggregationR01GM080742 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DOKHOLYAN, NIKOLAY · 2007 to 2015
$2.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM66940NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM066940NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM080742NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM080742
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We report on the prediction accuracy of ligand-based (2D QSAR) and structure-based (MedusaDock) methods used both independently and in consensus for ranking the congeneric series of ligands binding to three protein targets (UK, ERK2, and CHK1) from the CSAR 2011 benchmark exercise. An ensemble of predictive QSAR models was developed using known binders of these three targets extracted from the publicly available ChEMBL database. Selected models were used to predict the binding affinity of CSAR compounds toward the corresponding targets and rank them accordingly; the overall ranking accuracy evaluated by Spearman correlation was as high as 0.78 for UK, 0.60 for ERK2, and 0.56 for CHK1, placing our predictions in the top 10% among all the participants. In parallel, MedusaDock, designed to predict reliable docking poses, was also used for ranking the CSAR ligands according to their docking scores; the resulting accuracy (Spearman correlation) for UK, ERK2, and CHK1 were 0.76, 0.31, and 0.26, respectively. In addition, performance of several consensus approaches combining MedusaDock- and QSAR-predicted ranks altogether has been explored; the best approach yielded Spearman correlation coefficients for UK, ERK2, and CHK1 of 0.82, 0.50, and 0.45, respectively. This study shows that (i) externally validated 2D QSAR models were capable of ranking CSAR ligands at least as accurately as more computationally intensive structure-based approaches used both by us and by other groups and (ii) ligand-based QSAR models can complement structure-based approaches by boosting the prediction performances when used in consensus.

Indexed as

Databases, PharmaceuticalQuantitative Structure-Activity RelationshipDrug DiscoveryLigandsMolecular Docking SimulationProtein BindingSupport Vector MachineLigands

Identifiers

PMID23809015
PMCPMC3779696

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.