ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2019
Electrostatic-field and surface-shape similarity for virtual screening and pose prediction.
Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- DeepDrugDiscovery identifies blood-brain barrier permeable autophagy enhancers for Alzheimer's disease.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- LiraSearch-ultrafast ligand shape and electrostatic matching server.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Structure-based pose prediction: Non-cognate docking extended to macrocyclic ligands.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2024Article
- AutoDock-SS: AutoDock for Multiconformational Ligand-Based Virtual Screening.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024Article
- Complex peptide macrocycle optimization: combining NMR restraints with conformational analysis to guide structure-based and ligand-based design.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2023Article
- On the Value of Using 3D Shape and Electrostatic Similarities in Deep Generative Methods.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2022Article
- Simulation and Machine Learning Methods for Ion-Channel Structure Determination, Mechanistic Studies and Drug Design.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- Current Status of Baricitinib as a Repurposed Therapy for COVID-19.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Applications of Virtual Screening in Bioprospecting: Facts, Shifts, and Perspectives to Explore the Chemo-Structural Diversity of Natural Products.Frontiers in chemistry · 2021Review
- Machine learning and AI-based approaches for bioactive ligand discovery and GPCR-ligand recognition.Methods (San Diego, Calif.) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We introduce a new method for rapid computation of 3D molecular similarity that combines electrostatic field comparison with comparison of molecular surface-shape and directional hydrogen-bonding preferences (called "eSim"). Rather than employing heuristic "colors" or user-defined molecular feature types to represent conformation-dependent molecular electrostatics, eSim calculates the similarity of the electrostatic fields of two molecules (in addition to shape and hydrogen-bonding). We present detailed virtual screening performance data on the standard 102 target DUD-E set. In its moderately fast screening mode, eSim running on a single computing core is capable of processing over 60 molecules per second. In this mode, eSim performed significantly better than all alternate methods for which full DUD-E data were available (mean ROC area of 0.74, p [Formula: see text], by paired t-test, compared with the best performing alternate method). In addition, for 92 targets of the DUD-E set where multiple ligand-bound crystal structures were available, screening performance was assessed using alternate ligands or sets thereof (in their bound poses) as similarity targets. Using the joint alignment of five ligands for each protein target, mean ROC area exceeded 0.82 for the 92 targets. Design-focused application of ligand similarity methods depends on accurate predictions of geometric molecular relationships. We comprehensively assessed pose prediction accuracy by curating nearly 400,000 bound ligand pose pairs across the DUD-E targets. Overall, beginning from agnostic initial poses, we observed an 80% success rate for RMSD [Formula: see text] Å among the top 20 predicted eSim poses. These examples were split roughly 50/50 into cases with high direct atomic overlap (where a shared scaffold exists between a pair) and low direct atomic overlap (where where a ligand pair has dissimilar scaffolds but largely occupies the same space). Within the high direct atomic overlap subset, the pose prediction success rate was 93%. For the more challenging subset (where dissimilar scaffolds are to be aligned), the success rate was 70%. The eSim approach enables both large-scale screening and rational design of ligands and is rooted in physically meaningful, non-heuristic, molecular comparisons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.