Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26181386›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

DARC 2.0: Improved Docking and Virtual Screening at Protein Interaction Sites.

Ragul Gowthaman, Sergey Lyskov, John Karanicolas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. G.A.M.E.: GPU-accelerated mixture elucidator.Journal of cheminformatics · 2017
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Ragul GowthamanCenter for Computational Biology, University of Kansas, 2030 Becker Dr., Lawrence, KS, 66045, United States of America.
Sergey LyskovDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles St., Baltimore, MD, 21218, United States of America.
John KaranicolasCenter for Computational Biology, University of Kansas, 2030 Becker Dr., Lawrence, KS, 66045, United States of America; Department of Molecular Biosciences, University of Kansas, 2030 Becker Dr., Lawrence, KS, 66045, United States of America.

Funding

Identifying inhibitors of protein interactions using pocket optimizationR01GM099959 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS LAWRENCE · PI KARANICOLAS, JOHN · 2012 to 2016
$1.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM099959NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM099959
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past decade, protein-protein interactions have emerged as attractive but challenging targets for therapeutic intervention using small molecules. Due to the relatively flat surfaces that typify protein interaction sites, modern virtual screening tools developed for optimal performance against "traditional" protein targets perform less well when applied instead at protein interaction sites. Previously, we described a docking method specifically catered to the shallow binding modes characteristic of small-molecule inhibitors of protein interaction sites. This method, called DARC (Docking Approach using Ray Casting), operates by comparing the topography of the protein surface when "viewed" from a vantage point inside the protein against the topography of a bound ligand when "viewed" from the same vantage point. Here, we present five key enhancements to DARC. First, we use multiple vantage points to more accurately determine protein-ligand surface complementarity. Second, we describe a new scheme for rapidly determining optimal weights in the DARC scoring function. Third, we incorporate sampling of ligand conformers "on-the-fly" during docking. Fourth, we move beyond simple shape complementarity and introduce a term in the scoring function to capture electrostatic complementarity. Finally, we adjust the control flow in our GPU implementation of DARC to achieve greater speedup of these calculations. At each step of this study, we evaluate the performance of DARC in a "pose recapitulation" experiment: predicting the binding mode of 25 inhibitors each solved in complex with its distinct target protein (a protein interaction site). Whereas the previous version of DARC docked only one of these inhibitors to within 2 Å RMSD of its position in the crystal structure, the newer version achieves this level of accuracy for 12 of the 25 complexes, corresponding to a statistically significant performance improvement (p < 0.001). Collectively then, we find that the five enhancements described here--which together make up DARC 2.0--lead to dramatically improved speed and performance relative to the original DARC method.

Indexed as

Molecular Docking SimulationSoftwareProtein BindingProtein Interaction Domains and MotifsProtein Interaction MappingProteinsQuality ImprovementProteins

Identifiers

PMID26181386
PMCPMC4504481

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.