Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28185549›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2016

Correcting the impact of docking pose generation error on binding affinity prediction.

Hongjian Li, Kwong-Sak Leung, Man-Hon Wong, Pedro J Ballester

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Exploring the Mechanism of NabioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Docking-Informed Machine Learning for Kinome-wide Affinity Prediction.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Virtual Screening with Gnina 1.0.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Hongjian LiDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Kwong-Sak LeungDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Man-Hon WongDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Pedro J BallesterCancer Research Center of Marseille, INSERM U1068, Marseille, F-13009, France. pedro.ballester@inserm.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPose generation error is usually quantified as the difference between the geometry of the pose generated by the docking software and that of the same molecule co-crystallised with the considered protein. Surprisingly, the impact of this error on binding affinity prediction is yet to be systematically analysed across diverse protein-ligand complexes.

resultsAgainst commonly-held views, we have found that pose generation error has generally a small impact on the accuracy of binding affinity prediction. This is also true for large pose generation errors and it is not only observed with machine-learning scoring functions, but also with classical scoring functions such as AutoDock Vina. Furthermore, we propose a procedure to correct a substantial part of this error which consists of calibrating the scoring functions with re-docked, rather than co-crystallised, poses. In this way, the relationship between Vina-generated protein-ligand poses and their binding affinities is directly learned. As a result, test set performance after this error-correcting procedure is much closer to that of predicting the binding affinity in the absence of pose generation error (i.e. on crystal structures). We evaluated several strategies, obtaining better results for those using a single docked pose per ligand than those using multiple docked poses per ligand.

conclusionsBinding affinity prediction is often carried out on the docked pose of a known binder rather than its co-crystallised pose. Our results suggest than pose generation error is in general far less damaging for binding affinity prediction than it is currently believed. Another contribution of our study is the proposal of a procedure that largely corrects for this error. The resulting machine-learning scoring function is freely available at http://istar.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/rf-score-4.tgz and http://ballester.marseille.inserm.fr/rf-score-4.tgz .

Indexed as

SoftwareHumansLigandsMolecular Docking SimulationNuclear ProteinsProtein BindingProtein ConformationPyrazinesTranscription FactorsLigandsNuclear ProteinsPI3KCA protein, humanPyrazinesTranscription FactorsBinding affinityDrug discoveryMachine learningMolecular docking

Identifiers

PMID28185549
PMCPMC5046193

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.