Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28196116›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

The scoring bias in reverse docking and the score normalization strategy to improve success rate of target fishing.

Qiyao Luo, Liang Zhao, Jianxing Hu, Hongwei Jin, Zhenming Liu, Liangren Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The interictal transcriptomic map of migraine without aura.The journal of headache and pain · 2025
    Article
  6. Benchmarking reverse docking through AlphaFold2 human proteome.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. EXCLI journal · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Molecular Docking: Shifting Paradigms in Drug Discovery.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

Qiyao LuoState Key Laboratory of Natural and Biomimetic Drugs, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, P. R. China.
Liang ZhaoState Key Laboratory of Natural and Biomimetic Drugs, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, P. R. China.
Jianxing HuState Key Laboratory of Natural and Biomimetic Drugs, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, P. R. China.
Hongwei JinState Key Laboratory of Natural and Biomimetic Drugs, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, P. R. China.
Zhenming LiuState Key Laboratory of Natural and Biomimetic Drugs, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, P. R. China.
Liangren ZhangState Key Laboratory of Natural and Biomimetic Drugs, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, P. R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Target fishing often relies on the use of reverse docking to identify potential target proteins of ligands from protein database. The limitation of reverse docking is the accuracy of current scoring funtions used to distinguish true target from non-target proteins. Many contemporary scoring functions are designed for the virtual screening of small molecules without special optimization for reverse docking, which would be easily influenced by the properties of protein pockets, resulting in scoring bias to the proteins with certain properties. This bias would cause lots of false positives in reverse docking, interferring the identification of true targets. In this paper, we have conducted a large-scale reverse docking (5000 molecules to 100 proteins) to study the scoring bias in reverse docking by DOCK, Glide, and AutoDock Vina. And we found that there were actually some frequency hits, namely interference proteins in all three docking procedures. After analyzing the differences of pocket properties between these interference proteins and the others, we speculated that the interference proteins have larger contact area (related to the size and shape of protein pockets) with ligands (for all three docking programs) or higher hydrophobicity (for Glide), which could be the causes of scoring bias. Then we applied the score normalization method to eliminate this scoring bias, which was effective to make docking score more balanced between different proteins in the reverse docking of benchmark dataset. Later, the Astex Diver Set was utilized to validate the effect of score normalization on actual cases of reverse docking, showing that the accuracy of target prediction significantly increased by 21.5% in the reverse docking by Glide after score normalization, though there was no obvious change in the reverse docking by DOCK and AutoDock Vina. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of score normalization to eliminate the scoring bias and improve the accuracy of target prediction in reverse docking. Moreover, the properties of protein pockets causing scoring bias to certain proteins we found here can provide the theory basis to further optimize the scoring functions of docking programs for future research.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBiasBinding SitesComputational BiologyDatabases, ProteinHydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsLigandsMolecular Docking SimulationProtein BindingProtein ConformationProtein Interaction MappingProteinsReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareLigandsProteins

Identifiers

PMID28196116
PMCPMC5308821

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.