Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25916906›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of medicinal chemistry2015

Prospective performance evaluation of selected common virtual screening tools. Case study: Cyclooxygenase (COX) 1 and 2.

Teresa Kaserer, Veronika Temml, Zsofia Kutil, Tomas Vanek, Premysl Landa, Daniela Schuster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Teresa KasererInstitute of Pharmacy/Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck, University of Innsbruck, Innrain 80-82, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Veronika TemmlInstitute of Pharmacy/Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck, University of Innsbruck, Innrain 80-82, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Zsofia KutilLaboratory of Plant Biotechnologies, Institute of Experimental Botany AS CR. v.v.i., Rozvojova 263, 165 02 Prague 6 - Lysolaje, Czech Republic; Department of Crop Sciences and Agroforestry, Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 129, 165 21 Prague 6 - Suchdol, Czech Republic.
Tomas VanekLaboratory of Plant Biotechnologies, Institute of Experimental Botany AS CR. v.v.i., Rozvojova 263, 165 02 Prague 6 - Lysolaje, Czech Republic.
Premysl LandaLaboratory of Plant Biotechnologies, Institute of Experimental Botany AS CR. v.v.i., Rozvojova 263, 165 02 Prague 6 - Lysolaje, Czech Republic.
Daniela SchusterInstitute of Pharmacy/Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck, University of Innsbruck, Innrain 80-82, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria. Electronic address: Daniela.Schuster@uibk.ac.at.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 26782
6 · The paper itself

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

Cyclooxygenase 1Cyclooxygenase 2Cyclooxygenase InhibitorsDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalHumansModels, MolecularMolecular StructureStructure-Activity RelationshipCyclooxygenase 1Cyclooxygenase 2Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors2D similarity-based searchCyclooxygenaseDockingMethod comparisonPharmacophore modelingShape-based modeling

Identifiers

PMID25916906
PMCPMC4444576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.