ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2013
Predicting binding affinity of CSAR ligands using both structure-based and ligand-based approaches.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting Protein-Ligand Docking Structure with Graph Neural Network.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2022Review
- Simplex representation of molecular structure as universal QSAR/QSPR tool.Structural chemistry · 2021Review
- Adverse drug reactions triggered by the common HLA-B*57:01 variant: virtual screening of DrugBank using 3D molecular docking.Journal of cheminformatics · 2018Article
- Docking of small molecules to farnesoid X receptors using AutoDock Vina with the Convex-PL potential: lessons learned from D3R Grand Challenge 2.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2018Article
- Adverse drug reactions triggered by the common HLA-B*57:01 variant: a molecular docking study.Journal of cheminformatics · 2017Article
- Use of bacteriophage to target bacterial surface structures required for virulence: a systematic search for antibiotic alternatives.Current genetics · 2016Review
- Trust, but Verify II: A Practical Guide to Chemogenomics Data Curation.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What 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.