Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31650386›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2019

Electrostatic-field and surface-shape similarity for virtual screening and pose prediction.

Ann E Cleves, Stephen R Johnson, Ajay N Jain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. AutoDock-SS: AutoDock for Multiconformational Ligand-Based Virtual Screening.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. 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

3 authors.

Ann E ClevesApplied Science, BioPharmics LLC, Santa Rosa, CA, USA.
Stephen R JohnsonComputer-Assisted Drug-Design, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co., Princeton, NJ, USA.
Ajay N JainDept. of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, USA. ajain@jainlab.org.ORCID 0000-0003-4641-8501

Funding

Binding-Site Modeling with Multiple-Instance Machine-LearningR01GM101689 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI JAIN, AJAY N · 2013 to 2020
$2.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM101689
6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsDrug DesignDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalStatic ElectricityComputer SimulationHumansLigandsModels, MolecularMolecular StructurePharmaceutical PreparationsProtein BindingProtein ConformationProteinsLigandsPharmaceutical PreparationsProteinsForceGenLigand alignmentLigand-based modelingMolecular similarityPose predictionROCSSurflexVirtual-screening

Identifiers

PMID31650386
PMCPMC6856045

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.