ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2016
vSDC: a method to improve early recognition in virtual screening when limited experimental resources are available.
Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discovery of selective GluN1/GluN3A NMDA receptor inhibitors using integrated AI and physics-based approaches.Acta pharmacologica Sinica · 2026Article
- Negative Image-Based Screening: Rigid Docking Using Cavity Information.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Negative Image-Based Rescoring: Using Cavity Information to Improve Docking Screening.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Targeting the C-Terminal Domain Small Phosphatase 1.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Key Topics in Molecular Docking for Drug Design.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Empirical Scoring Functions for Structure-Based Virtual Screening: Applications, Critical Aspects, and Challenges.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Review
- Efficient conformational sampling and weak scoring in docking programs? Strategy of the wisdom of crowds.Journal of cheminformatics · 2017Article
- Benchmark of four popular virtual screening programs: construction of the active/decoy dataset remains a major determinant of measured performance.Journal of cheminformatics · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn drug design, one may be confronted to the problem of finding hits for targets for which no small inhibiting molecules are known and only low-throughput experiments are available (like ITC or NMR studies), two common difficulties encountered in a typical academic setting. Using a virtual screening strategy like docking can alleviate some of the problems and save a considerable amount of time by selecting only top-ranking molecules, but only if the method is very efficient, i.e. when a good proportion of actives are found in the 1-10 % best ranked molecules.
resultsThe use of several programs (in our study, Gold, Surflex, FlexX and Glide were considered) shows a divergence of the results, which presents a difficulty in guiding the experiments. To overcome this divergence and increase the yield of the virtual screening, we created the standard deviation consensus (SDC) and variable SDC (vSDC) methods, consisting of the intersection of molecule sets from several virtual screening programs, based on the standard deviations of their ranking distributions.
conclusionsSDC allowed us to find hits for two new protein targets by testing only 9 and 11 small molecules from a chemical library of circa 15,000 compounds. Furthermore, vSDC, when applied to the 102 proteins of the DUD-E benchmarking database, succeeded in finding more hits than any of the four isolated programs for 13-60 % of the targets. In addition, when only 10 molecules of each of the 102 chemical libraries were considered, vSDC performed better in the number of hits found, with an improvement of 6-24 % over the 10 best-ranked molecules given by the individual docking programs.Graphical abstractIn drug design, for a given target and a given chemical library, the results obtained with different virtual screening programs are divergent. So how to rationally guide the experimental tests, especially when only a few number of experiments can be made? The variable Standard Deviation Consensus (vSDC) method was developed to answer this issue. Left panel the vSDC principle consists of intersecting molecule sets, chosen on the basis of the standard deviations of their ranking distributions, obtained from various virtual screening programs. In this study Glide, Gold, FlexX and Surflex were used and tested on the 102 targets of the DUD-E database. Right panel Comparison of the average percentage of hits found with vSDC and each of the four programs, when only 10 molecules from each of the 102 chemical libraries of the DUD-E database were considered. On average, vSDC was capable of finding 38 % of the findable hits, against 34 % for Glide, 32 % for Gold, 16 % for FlexX and 14 % for Surflex, showing that with vSDC, it was possible to overcome the unpredictability of the virtual screening results and to improve them.
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.