Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24599514›Full record

ReviewJournal of computer-aided molecular design2014

The SAMPL4 host-guest blind prediction challenge: an overview.

Hari S Muddana, Andrew T Fenley, David L Mobley, Michael K Gilson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 108 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing 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

108 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Tuning Potential Functions to Host-Guest Binding Data.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. An overview of the SAMPL8 host-guest binding challenge.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

48 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

4 authors.

Hari S MuddanaSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, MC 0736, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0736, USA.
Andrew T Fenley
David L Mobley
Michael K Gilson

Funding

THEORY AND MODELING OF NONCOVALENT BINDINGR01GM061300 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MD BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE · PI GILSON, MICHAEL K. · 2000 to 2021
$7.2M
Testing and improving alchemical techniques for predicting protein-ligand bindingR15GM096257 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS · PI MOBLEY, DAVID LOWELL · 2012 to 2012
$268k
NIGMS NIH HHS 1R15GM096257-01A1NIGMS NIH HHS GM61300NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM061300NIGMS NIH HHS R15 GM096257
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prospective validation of methods for computing binding affinities can help assess their predictive power and thus set reasonable expectations for their performance in drug design applications. Supramolecular host-guest systems are excellent model systems for testing such affinity prediction methods, because their small size and limited conformational flexibility, relative to proteins, allows higher throughput and better numerical convergence. The SAMPL4 prediction challenge therefore included a series of host-guest systems, based on two hosts, cucurbit[7]uril and octa-acid. Binding affinities in aqueous solution were measured experimentally for a total of 23 guest molecules. Participants submitted 35 sets of computational predictions for these host-guest systems, based on methods ranging from simple docking, to extensive free energy simulations, to quantum mechanical calculations. Over half of the predictions provided better correlations with experiment than two simple null models, but most methods underperformed the null models in terms of root mean squared error and linear regression slope. Interestingly, the overall performance across all SAMPL4 submissions was similar to that for the prior SAMPL3 host-guest challenge, although the experimentalists took steps to simplify the current challenge. While some methods performed fairly consistently across both hosts, no single approach emerged as consistent top performer, and the nonsystematic nature of the various submissions made it impossible to draw definitive conclusions regarding the best choices of energy models or sampling algorithms. Salt effects emerged as an issue in the calculation of absolute binding affinities of cucurbit[7]uril-guest systems, but were not expected to affect the relative affinities significantly. Useful directions for future rounds of the challenge might involve encouraging participants to carry out some calculations that replicate each others' studies, and to systematically explore parameter options.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, MolecularBenzoatesBinding SitesBridged-Ring CompoundsComputer-Aided DesignCucurbit(n)urilsDrug DesignEthers, CyclicImidazolesLigandsMacrocyclic CompoundsProteinsResorcinolsThermodynamicsBenzoatesBridged-Ring Compoundscavitandcucurbit(7)urilCucurbit(n)urilsEthers, CyclicImidazolesLigandsMacrocyclic CompoundsProteinsResorcinols

Identifiers

PMID24599514
PMCPMC4053502

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.