Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24493410›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2014

Virtual screening with AutoDock Vina and the common pharmacophore engine of a low diversity library of fragments and hits against the three allosteric sites of HIV integrase: participation in the SAMPL4 protein-ligand binding challenge.

Alexander L Perryman, Daniel N Santiago, Stefano Forli, Diogo Santos Martins, Arthur J Olson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Property-Unmatched Decoys in Docking Benchmarks.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Molecular Docking: Shifting Paradigms in Drug Discovery.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Charting a Path to Success in Virtual Screening.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Alexander L Perryman *Department of Integrative Structural & Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Daniel N Santiago *Department of Integrative Structural & Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Stefano ForliDepartment of Integrative Structural & Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Diogo Santos MartinsDepartment of Integrative Structural & Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Arthur J OlsonDepartment of Integrative Structural & Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Funding

Project 9P50GM103368 · NIGMS · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI ARNOLD, EDWARD · 2012 to 2016
$20.0M
AutoDock Suite: Next Generation Environment for Drug DesignR01GM069832 · NIGMS · SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE · PI FORLI, STEFANO · 2004 to 2025
$10.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS P50 GM103368NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM069832
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To rigorously assess the tools and protocols that can be used to understand and predict macromolecular recognition, and to gain more structural insight into three newly discovered allosteric binding sites on a critical drug target involved in the treatment of HIV infections, the Olson and Levy labs collaborated on the SAMPL4 challenge. This computational blind challenge involved predicting protein-ligand binding against the three allosteric sites of HIV integrase (IN), a viral enzyme for which two drugs (that target the active site) have been approved by the FDA. Positive control cross-docking experiments were utilized to select 13 receptor models out of an initial ensemble of 41 different crystal structures of HIV IN. These 13 models of the targets were selected using our new "Rank Difference Ratio" metric. The first stage of SAMPL4 involved using virtual screens to identify 62 active, allosteric IN inhibitors out of a set of 321 compounds. The second stage involved predicting the binding site(s) and crystallographic binding mode(s) for 57 of these inhibitors. Our team submitted four entries for the first stage that utilized: (1) AutoDock Vina (AD Vina) plus visual inspection; (2) a new common pharmacophore engine; (3) BEDAM replica exchange free energy simulations, and a Consensus approach that combined the predictions of all three strategies. Even with the SAMPL4's very challenging compound library that displayed a significantly lower amount of structural diversity than most libraries that are conventionally employed in prospective virtual screens, these approaches produced hit rates of 24, 25, 34, and 27 %, respectively, on a set with 19 % declared binders. Our only entry for the second stage challenge was based on the results of AD Vina plus visual inspection, and it ranked third place overall according to several different metrics provided by the SAMPL4 organizers. The successful results displayed by these approaches highlight the utility of the computational structure-based drug discovery tools and strategies that are being developed to advance the goals of the newly created, multi-institution, NIH-funded center called the "HIV Interaction and Viral Evolution Center".

Indexed as

Drug DesignMolecular Docking SimulationAllosteric SiteBinding SitesComputer-Aided DesignHIVHIV InfectionsHIV IntegraseHIV Integrase InhibitorsHumansLigandsHIV IntegraseHIV Integrase InhibitorsLigands

Identifiers

PMID24493410
PMCPMC4053500

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.