Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34108002›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2021

GNINA 1.0: molecular docking with deep learning.

Andrew T McNutt, Paul Francoeur, Rishal Aggarwal, Tomohide Masuda, Rocco Meli, Matthew Ragoza, Jocelyn Sunseri, David Ryan Koes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 386 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
386citing 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

386 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Drug repurposing in hereditary ataxia.npj drug discovery · 2026
    Review
  4. Molecular mechanisms of protein disulfide isomerase antagonism by punicalagin.Biochemical and biophysical research communications · 2026
    Article
  5. ThebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Target discovery and drug design in the era of artificial intelligence.Medicinal chemistry research : an international journal for rapid communications on design and mechanisms of action of biologically active agents · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Identification of Small-Molecule Inhibitors ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

326 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

8 authors.

Andrew T McNuttDepartment of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Paul FrancoeurDepartment of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Rishal AggarwalCenter for Computational Natural Sciences and Bioinformatics, International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad, 500 032, India.
Tomohide MasudaDepartment of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Rocco MeliDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Matthew RagozaDepartment of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Jocelyn SunseriDepartment of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
David Ryan KoesDepartment of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. dkoes@pitt.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6892-6614

Funding

Methods, Tools and Resources for Interactive Online Virtual Screening and Lead OptimizationR01GM108340 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI KOES, DAVID RYAN · 2013 to 2020
$1.8M
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/S50760X/1Interdisciplinary Biosciences DTP at the University of Oxford BB/MO11224/1NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM108340NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM108340
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular docking computationally predicts the conformation of a small molecule when binding to a receptor. Scoring functions are a vital piece of any molecular docking pipeline as they determine the fitness of sampled poses. Here we describe and evaluate the 1.0 release of the Gnina docking software, which utilizes an ensemble of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) as a scoring function. We also explore an array of parameter values for Gnina 1.0 to optimize docking performance and computational cost. Docking performance, as evaluated by the percentage of targets where the top pose is better than 2Å root mean square deviation (Top1), is compared to AutoDock Vina scoring when utilizing explicitly defined binding pockets or whole protein docking. GNINA, utilizing a CNN scoring function to rescore the output poses, outperforms AutoDock Vina scoring on redocking and cross-docking tasks when the binding pocket is defined (Top1 increases from 58% to 73% and from 27% to 37%, respectively) and when the whole protein defines the binding pocket (Top1 increases from 31% to 38% and from 12% to 16%, respectively). The derived ensemble of CNNs generalizes to unseen proteins and ligands and produces scores that correlate well with the root mean square deviation to the known binding pose. We provide the 1.0 version of GNINA under an open source license for use as a molecular docking tool at https://github.com/gnina/gnina .

Indexed as

Deep learningMolecular dockingStructure-based drug design

Identifiers

PMID34108002
PMCPMC8191141

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.