ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2016
Choosing the Optimal Rigid Receptor for Docking and Scoring in the CSAR 2013/2014 Experiment.
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterization of allosteric modulators that disrupt androgen receptor co-activator protein-protein interactions to alter transactivation-Drug leads for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.SLAS discovery : advancing life sciences R & D · 2023Article
- Cross-docking benchmark for automated pose and ranking prediction of ligand binding.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2020Article
- Crystal structure and catalytic mechanism of the essential mRNA (New York, N.Y.) · 2019Article
- A network-centric approach to drugging TNF-induced NF-κB signaling.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Current Advances in Studying Clinically Relevant Transporters of the Solute Carrier (SLC) Family by Connecting Computational Modeling and Data Science.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2019Review
- Predicting protein targets for drug-like compounds using transcriptomics.PLoS computational biology · 2018Article
- Predicting the Structures of Glycans, Glycoproteins, and Their Complexes.Chemical reviews · 2018Review
- Improving small molecule virtual screening strategies for the next generation of therapeutics.Current opinion in chemical biology · 2018Review
- Lessons learned in induced fit docking and metadynamics in the Drug Design Data Resource Grand Challenge 2.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2018Article
- Docking of small molecules to farnesoid X receptors using AutoDock Vina with the Convex-PL potential: lessons learned from D3R Grand Challenge 2.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2018Article
- Leishmania infantum 5'-Methylthioadenosine Phosphorylase presents relevant structural divergence to constitute a potential drug target.BMC structural biology · 2017Article
- Optimal strategies for virtual screening of induced-fit and flexible target in the 2015 D3R Grand Challenge.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2016Article
- Combined Approach of Patch-Surfer and PL-PatchSurfer for Protein-Ligand Binding Prediction in CSAR 2013 and 2014.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2016Article
- CSAR 2014: A Benchmark Exercise Using Unpublished Data from Pharma.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The 2013/2014 Community Structure-Activity Resource (CSAR) challenge was designed to prospectively validate advancement in the field of docking and scoring receptor-small molecule interactions. Purely computational methods have been found to be quite limiting. Thus, the challenges assessed methods that combined both experimental data and computational approaches. Here, we describe our contribution to solve three important challenges in rational drug discovery: rank-ordering protein primary sequences based on affinity to a compound, determining close-to-native bound conformations out of a set of decoy poses, and rank-ordering sets of congeneric compounds based on affinity to a given protein. We showed that the most significant contribution to a meaningful enrichment of native-like models was the identification of the best receptor structure for docking and scoring. Depending on the target, the optimal receptor for cross-docking and scoring was identified by a self-consistent docking approach that used the Vina scoring function, by aligning compounds to the closest cocrystal or by selecting the cocrystal receptor with the largest pocket. For tRNA (m1G37) methyltransferase (TRMD), ranking a set of 31 congeneric binding compounds cross-docked to the optimal receptor resulted in a R(2) = 0.67; whereas, using any other of the 13 receptor structures led to almost no enrichment of native-like complex structures. Furthermore, although redocking predicted lower RMSDs relative to the bound structures, the ranking based on multiple receptor structures did not improve the correlation coefficient. Our predictions highlight the role of rational structure-based modeling in maximizing the outcome of virtual screening, as well as limitations scoring multiple receptors.
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.