Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27097522›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2016

Knowledge-Based Methods To Train and Optimize Virtual Screening Ensembles.

Robert V Swift, Siti A Jusoh, Tavina L Offutt, Eric S Li, Rommie E Amaro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Property-Unmatched Decoys in Docking Benchmarks.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2021
    Article
  4. Structure-basedComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Efficiency of Stratification for Ensemble Docking Using Reduced Ensembles.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Ensemble Docking in Drug Discovery.Biophysical journal · 2018
    Review
  10. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Robert V SwiftDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, San Diego , La Jolla, California 92093-0340, United States.
Siti A JusohFaculty of Pharmacy, Universiti Teknologi MARA , 42300 Bandar Puncak Alam, Malaysia.
Tavina L OffuttDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, San Diego , La Jolla, California 92093-0340, United States.
Eric S LiDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, San Diego , La Jolla, California 92093-0340, United States.
Rommie E AmaroDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, San Diego , La Jolla, California 92093-0340, United States.
University of California San Diego · USUniversiti Teknologi MARA · MY

Funding

National Biomedical Computation Resource - Competitive Revision SupplementP41GM103426 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI AMARO, ROMMIE E · 2012 to 2019
$14.0M
A Structural Systems Biology Approach to Drug DiscoveryDP2OD007237 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI AMARO, ROMMIE E · 2010 to 2015
$2.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS P41 GM103426NIH HHS DP2 OD007237
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ensemble docking can be a successful virtual screening technique that addresses the innate conformational heterogeneity of macromolecular drug targets. Yet, lacking a method to identify a subset of conformational states that effectively segregates active and inactive small molecules, ensemble docking may result in the recommendation of a large number of false positives. Here, three knowledge-based methods that construct structural ensembles for virtual screening are presented. Each method selects ensembles by optimizing an objective function calculated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: either the area under the ROC curve (AUC) or a ROC enrichment factor (EF). As the number of receptor conformations, N, becomes large, the methods differ in their asymptotic scaling. Given a set of small molecules with known activities and a collection of target conformations, the most resource intense method is guaranteed to find the optimal ensemble but scales as O(2(N)). A recursive approximation to the optimal solution scales as O(N(2)), and a more severe approximation leads to a faster method that scales linearly, O(N). The techniques are generally applicable to any system, and we demonstrate their effectiveness on the androgen nuclear hormone receptor (AR), cyclin-dependent kinase 2 (CDK2), and the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor δ (PPAR-δ) drug targets. Conformations that consisted of a crystal structure and molecular dynamics simulation cluster centroids were used to form AR and CDK2 ensembles. Multiple available crystal structures were used to form PPAR-δ ensembles. For each target, we show that the three methods perform similarly to one another on both the training and test sets.

Indexed as

Machine LearningDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalMolecular Dynamics SimulationProtein ConformationUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID27097522
PMCPMC4881196
OpenAlexW2340614189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.