Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31784861›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2020

Docking rigid macrocycles using Convex-PL, AutoDock Vina, and RDKit in the D3R Grand Challenge 4.

Maria Kadukova, Vladimir Chupin, Sergei Grudinin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Maria KadukovaUniv. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Inria, Grenoble INP, LJK, 38000, Grenoble, France.
Vladimir ChupinMoscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Dolgoprudny, Russia, 141700.
Sergei GrudininUniv. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Inria, Grenoble INP, LJK, 38000, Grenoble, France. Sergei.Grudinin@inria.fr.ORCID 0000-0002-1903-7220

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The D3R Grand Challenge 4 provided a brilliant opportunity to test macrocyclic docking protocols on a diverse high-quality experimental data. We participated in both pose and affinity prediction exercises. Overall, we aimed to use an automated structure-based docking pipeline built around a set of tools developed in our team. This exercise again demonstrated a crucial importance of the correct local ligand geometry for the overall success of docking. Starting from the second part of the pose prediction stage, we developed a stable pipeline for sampling macrocycle conformers. This resulted in the subangstrom average precision of our pose predictions. In the affinity prediction exercise we obtained average results. However, we could improve these when using docking poses submitted by the best predictors. Our docking tools including the Convex-PL scoring function are available at https://team.inria.fr/nano-d/software/.

Indexed as

Drug DesignMolecular Docking SimulationBinding SitesDatabases, ProteinHumansLigandsMacrocyclic CompoundsProtein BindingProtein ConformationProteinsSoftwareLigandsMacrocyclic CompoundsProteinsConformer generationConvex-PLD3RDrug Design Data ResourceEnsemble dockingMacrocycle modelingProtein–ligand dockingScoring function

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.