ArticleEuropean journal of medicinal chemistry2015
Prospective performance evaluation of selected common virtual screening tools. Case study: Cyclooxygenase (COX) 1 and 2.
Article in European journal of medicinal chemistry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plant Metabolites as SARS-CoV-2 Inhibitors Candidates: In Silico and In Vitro Studies.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Empirical Scoring Functions for Structure-Based Virtual Screening: Applications, Critical Aspects, and Challenges.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Review
- Design, synthesis, and evaluation of novel 2-phenylpropionic acid derivatives as dual COX inhibitory-antibacterial agents.Journal of enzyme inhibition and medicinal chemistry · 2017Article
- Vinardo: A Scoring Function Based on Autodock Vina Improves Scoring, Docking, and Virtual Screening.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computational methods can be applied in drug development for the identification of novel lead candidates, but also for the prediction of pharmacokinetic properties and potential adverse effects, thereby aiding to prioritize and identify the most promising compounds. In principle, several techniques are available for this purpose, however, which one is the most suitable for a specific research objective still requires further investigation. Within this study, the performance of several programs, representing common virtual screening methods, was compared in a prospective manner. First, we selected top-ranked virtual screening hits from the three methods pharmacophore modeling, shape-based modeling, and docking. For comparison, these hits were then additionally predicted by external pharmacophore- and 2D similarity-based bioactivity profiling tools. Subsequently, the biological activities of the selected hits were assessed in vitro, which allowed for evaluating and comparing the prospective performance of the applied tools. Although all methods performed well, considerable differences were observed concerning hit rates, true positive and true negative hits, and hitlist composition. Our results suggest that a rational selection of the applied method represents a powerful strategy to maximize the success of a research project, tightly linked to its aims. We employed cyclooxygenase as application example, however, the focus of this study lied on highlighting the differences in the virtual screening tool performances and not in the identification of novel COX-inhibitors.
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.