ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2015
Applying DEKOIS 2.0 in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of preparation procedures and score normalization.
Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking docking and ML re-scoring screening performance for KRAS G12D in pancreatic cancer.Molecular diversity · 2026Article
- VsNsbench: evaluating AlphaFold3-embed induced-fit mechanism for enhanced virtual screening.Acta pharmacologica Sinica · 2026Article
- Fine-Tuning DiffDock-L for Allosteric Kinase Docking.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Multicomplex Pharmacophore Modeling of Estrogen Receptors Suggests the Probable Repurposing of Procaterol as an Antiproliferative Agent Against Breast Cancer Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- InertDB as a generative AI-expanded resource of biologically inactive small molecules from PubChem.Journal of cheminformatics · 2025Article
- The Need for Continuing Blinded Pose- and Activity Prediction Benchmarks.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Review
- Benchmarking the Structure-Based Virtual Screening Performance of Wild-Type and ResistantDrug design, development and therapy · 2025Article
- Article
- Standards for Computational Methods in Drug Design and Discovery: Simplified Guidance for Authors and Reviewers.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Article
- SCORCH: Improving structure-based virtual screening with machine learning classifiers, data augmentation, and uncertainty estimation.Journal of advanced research · 2023Article
- Article
- Structure-guided approach on the role of substitution on amide-linked bipyrazoles and its effect on their anti-inflammatory activity.Journal of enzyme inhibition and medicinal chemistry · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence to deep learning: machine intelligence approach for drug discovery.Molecular diversity · 2021Review
- Targeting multiple conformations of SARS-CoV2 Papain-Like Protease for drug repositioning: An in-silico study.Computers in biology and medicine · 2021Article
- Supporting SARS-CoV-2 Papain-Like Protease Drug Discovery:Frontiers in chemistry · 2020Article
- A benchmark driven guide to binding site comparison: An exhaustive evaluation using tailor-made data sets (ProSPECCTs).PLoS computational biology · 2018Article
- Decoys Selection in Benchmarking Datasets: Overview and Perspectives.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStructure-based virtual screening techniques can help to identify new lead structures and complement other screening approaches in drug discovery. Prior to docking, the data (protein crystal structures and ligands) should be prepared with great attention to molecular and chemical details.
resultsUsing a subset of 18 diverse targets from the recently introduced DEKOIS 2.0 benchmark set library, we found differences in the virtual screening performance of two popular docking tools (GOLD and Glide) when employing two different commercial packages (e.g. MOE and Maestro) for preparing input data. We systematically investigated the possible factors that can be responsible for the found differences in selected sets. For the Angiotensin-I-converting enzyme dataset, preparation of the bioactive molecules clearly exerted the highest influence on VS performance compared to preparation of the decoys or the target structure. The major contributing factors were different protonation states, molecular flexibility, and differences in the input conformation (particularly for cyclic moieties) of bioactives. In addition, score normalization strategies eliminated the biased docking scores shown by GOLD (ChemPLP) for the larger bioactives and produced a better performance. Generalizing these normalization strategies on the 18 DEKOIS 2.0 sets, improved the performances for the majority of GOLD (ChemPLP) docking, while it showed detrimental performances for the majority of Glide (SP) docking.
conclusionsIn conclusion, we exemplify herein possible issues particularly during the preparation stage of molecular data and demonstrate to which extent these issues can cause perturbations in the virtual screening performance. We provide insights into what problems can occur and should be avoided, when generating benchmarks to characterize the virtual screening performance. Particularly, careful selection of an appropriate molecular preparation setup for the bioactive set and the use of score normalization for docking with GOLD (ChemPLP) appear to have a great importance for the screening performance. For virtual screening campaigns, we recommend to invest time and effort into including alternative preparation workflows into the generation of the master library, even at the cost of including multiple representations of each molecule. Graphical AbstractUsing DEKOIS 2.0 benchmark sets in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of molecular preparation and score normalization.
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.