Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29127581›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2018

Lessons learned in induced fit docking and metadynamics in the Drug Design Data Resource Grand Challenge 2.

Matthew P Baumgartner, David A Evans

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Creating a Virtual Assistant for Medicinal Chemistry.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2019
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

2 authors.

Matthew P BaumgartnerComputational Chemistry and Cheminformatics, Eli Lilly and Company Ltd., Windlesham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1279-9038
David A EvansComputational Chemistry and Cheminformatics, Eli Lilly and Company Ltd., Windlesham, UK. evans_david_de@lilly.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two of the major ongoing challenges in computational drug discovery are predicting the binding pose and affinity of a compound to a protein. The Drug Design Data Resource Grand Challenge 2 was developed to address these problems and to drive development of new methods. The challenge provided the 2D structures of compounds for which the organizers help blinded data in the form of 35 X-ray crystal structures and 102 binding affinity measurements and challenged participants to predict the binding pose and affinity of the compounds. We tested a number of pose prediction methods as part of the challenge; we found that docking methods that incorporate protein flexibility (Induced Fit Docking) outperformed methods that treated the protein as rigid. We also found that using binding pose metadynamics, a molecular dynamics based method, to score docked poses provided the best predictions of our methods with an average RMSD of 2.01 Å. We tested both structure-based (e.g. docking) and ligand-based methods (e.g. QSAR) in the affinity prediction portion of the competition. We found that our structure-based methods based on docking with Smina (Spearman ρ = 0.614), performed slightly better than our ligand-based methods (ρ = 0.543), and had equivalent performance with the other top methods in the competition. Despite the overall good performance of our methods in comparison to other participants in the challenge, there exists significant room for improvement especially in cases such as these where protein flexibility plays such a large role.

Indexed as

Drug DesignMolecular Docking SimulationBenzimidazolesComputer-Aided DesignCrystallography, X-RayDatabases, ProteinDrug DiscoveryHumansIsoxazolesLigandsProtein BindingProtein ConformationReceptor, Farnesoid X-ActivatedReceptors, Cytoplasmic and NuclearSpiro CompoundsSulfonamidesBenzimidazolesIsoxazolesLigandsReceptor, Farnesoid X-ActivatedReceptors, Cytoplasmic and NuclearSpiro CompoundsSulfonamidesAffinity predictionD3RDrug design data resourceInduced fit dockingMetadynamicsPose prediction

Identifiers

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.