Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26897747›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2016

1001 Ways to run AutoDock Vina for virtual screening.

Mohammad Mahdi Jaghoori, Boris Bleijlevens, Silvia D Olabarriaga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Cucurbitacin B mitigatesJournal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. IntegratedFrontiers in chemistry · 2026
    Article
  7. Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026
    Article
  8. Computational Study of Enzyme Inhibition.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026
    Article
  11. Antimicrobial evaluation ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Mohammad Mahdi JaghooriDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. mmajid@gmail.com.
Boris BleijlevensDepartment of Medical Biochemistry, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Silvia D OlabarriagaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large-scale computing technologies have enabled high-throughput virtual screening involving thousands to millions of drug candidates. It is not trivial, however, for biochemical scientists to evaluate the technical alternatives and their implications for running such large experiments. Besides experience with the molecular docking tool itself, the scientist needs to learn how to run it on high-performance computing (HPC) infrastructures, and understand the impact of the choices made. Here, we review such considerations for a specific tool, AutoDock Vina, and use experimental data to illustrate the following points: (1) an additional level of parallelization increases virtual screening throughput on a multi-core machine; (2) capturing of the random seed is not enough (though necessary) for reproducibility on heterogeneous distributed computing systems; (3) the overall time spent on the screening of a ligand library can be improved by analysis of factors affecting execution time per ligand, including number of active torsions, heavy atoms and exhaustiveness. We also illustrate differences among four common HPC infrastructures: grid, Hadoop, small cluster and multi-core (virtual machine on the cloud). Our analysis shows that these platforms are suitable for screening experiments of different sizes. These considerations can guide scientists when choosing the best computing platform and set-up for their future large virtual screening experiments.

Indexed as

Computer-Aided DesignDrug DiscoverySoftwareDatabases, PharmaceuticalHumansLigandsMolecular Docking SimulationNuclear Receptor Subfamily 4, Group A, Member 1ProteinsReproducibility of ResultsUser-Computer InterfaceLigandsNR4A1 protein, humanNuclear Receptor Subfamily 4, Group A, Member 1ProteinsAutoDock VinaGrid computingHadoopHigh-performance computingMulti-coreReproducibilityVirtual screening

Identifiers

PMID26897747
PMCPMC4801993

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.