Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28106755›Full record

ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2017

The Performance of Several Docking Programs at Reproducing Protein-Macrolide-Like Crystal Structures.

Alejandro Castro-Alvarez, Anna M Costa, Jaume Vilarrasa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Current computer-aided drug design · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Exploring the Impact of 3-Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Design and synthesis of newer 5-aryl-Future medicinal chemistry · 2025
    Article
  19. Ethanol extract fromNarra J · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

17 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.

Alejandro Castro-AlvarezOrganic Chemistry Section, Facultat de Química, Diagonal 645, Universitat de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. alecastro@ub.edu.
Anna M CostaOrganic Chemistry Section, Facultat de Química, Diagonal 645, Universitat de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. amcosta@ub.edu.
Jaume VilarrasaOrganic Chemistry Section, Facultat de Química, Diagonal 645, Universitat de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. jvilarrasa@ub.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The accuracy of five docking programs at reproducing crystallographic structures of complexes of 8 macrolides and 12 related macrocyclic structures, all with their corresponding receptors, was evaluated. Self-docking calculations indicated excellent performance in all cases (mean RMSD values ≤ 1.0) and confirmed the speed of AutoDock Vina. Afterwards, the lowest-energy conformer of each molecule and all the conformers lying 0-10 kcal/mol above it (as given by Macrocycle, from MacroModel 10.0) were subjected to standard docking calculations. While each docking method has its own merits, the observed speed of the programs was as follows: Glide 6.6 > AutoDock Vina 1.1.2 > DOCK 6.5 >> AutoDock 4.2.6 > AutoDock 3.0.5. For most of the complexes, the five methods predicted quite correct poses of ligands at the binding sites, but the lower RMSD values for the poses of highest affinity were in the order: Glide 6.6 ≈ AutoDock Vina ≈ DOCK 6.5 > AutoDock 4.2.6 >> AutoDock 3.0.5. By choosing the poses closest to the crystal structure the order was: AutoDock Vina > Glide 6.6 ≈ DOCK 6.5 ≥ AutoDock 4.2.6 >> AutoDock 3.0.5. Re-scoring (AutoDock 4.2.6//AutoDock Vina, Amber Score and MM-GBSA) improved the agreement between the calculated and experimental data. For all intents and purposes, these three methods are equally reliable.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBinding SitesLigandsMacrocyclic CompoundsMacrolidesMolecular Docking SimulationProtein BindingProteinsSoftwareLigandsMacrocyclic CompoundsMacrolidesProteinsAutoDockDOCKdockingGlidemacrolidesnatural productsVina

Identifiers

PMID28106755
PMCPMC6155922

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.