Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29710787›Full record

ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2018

Is It Reliable to Take the Molecular Docking Top Scoring Position as the Best Solution without Considering Available Structural Data?

David Ramírez, Julio Caballero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 228 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
228citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. In Silico Screening ofBiology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Harnessing gut microbiome enzymes:Microbiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

168 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

2 authors.

David RamírezInstituto de Ciencias Biomédicas, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, 5 Poniente No. 1670, 3460000 Talca, Chile. david.ramirez@uautonoma.cl.ORCID 0000-0003-0002-1189
Julio CaballeroCentro de Bioinformática y Simulación Molecular (CBSM), Universidad de Talca. 1 Poniente No. 1141, 3460000 Talca, Chile. jcaballero@utalca.cl.ORCID 0000-0003-0182-1444

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular docking is the most frequently used computational method for studying the interactions between organic molecules and biological macromolecules. In this context, docking allows predicting the preferred pose of a ligand inside a receptor binding site. However, the selection of the “best” solution is not a trivial task, despite the widely accepted selection criterion that the best pose corresponds to the best energy score. Here, several rigid-target docking methods were evaluated on the same dataset with respect to their ability to reproduce crystallographic binding orientations, to test if the best energy score is a reliable criterion for selecting the best solution. For this, two experiments were performed: (A) to reconstruct the ligand-receptor complex by performing docking of the ligand in its own crystal structure receptor (defined as self-docking), and (B) to reconstruct the ligand-receptor complex by performing docking of the ligand in a crystal structure receptor that contains other ligand (defined as cross-docking). Root-mean square deviation (RMSD) was used to evaluate how different the obtained docking orientation is from the corresponding co-crystallized pose of the same ligand molecule. We found that docking score function is capable of predicting crystallographic binding orientations, but the best ranked solution according to the docking energy is not always the pose that reproduces the experimental binding orientation. This happened when self-docking was achieved, but it was critical in cross-docking. Taking into account that docking is typically used with predictive purposes, during cross-docking experiments, our results indicate that the best energy score is not a reliable criterion to select the best solution in common docking applications. It is strongly recommended to choose the best docking solution according to the scoring function along with additional structural criteria described for analogue ligands to assure the selection of a correct docking solution.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyCrystallography, X-RayLigandsModels, MolecularMolecular Docking SimulationProtein BindingProteinsLigandsProteinsAutoDockcross-dockingGliderigid molecular dockingRMSDscoring energy

Identifiers

PMID29710787
PMCPMC6102569

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.