Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35121854›Full record

ReviewNature protocols2022

Artificial intelligence-enabled virtual screening of ultra-large chemical libraries with deep docking.

Francesco Gentile, Jean Charle Yaacoub, James Gleave, Michael Fernandez, Anh-Tien Ton, Fuqiang Ban, Abraham Stern, Artem Cherkasov

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature protocols, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 172 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
172citing papers in PubMed
51.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

172 citing papers in PubMed, 367 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The Tsetlin Machine: A "Third Way" in QSAR Modeling.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

112 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 at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Francesco GentileVancouver Prostate Centre, Department of Urologic Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8299-1976
Jean Charle Yaacoub *Vancouver Prostate Centre, Department of Urologic Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
James Gleave *Vancouver Prostate Centre, Department of Urologic Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Michael FernandezVancouver Prostate Centre, Department of Urologic Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Anh-Tien TonVancouver Prostate Centre, Department of Urologic Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7418-6563
Fuqiang BanVancouver Prostate Centre, Department of Urologic Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Abraham SternNVIDIA Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA.
Artem CherkasovVancouver Prostate Centre, Department of Urologic Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. acherkasov@prostatecentre.com.
University of British Columbia · CANvidia (United States) · US

Funding

CIHR MFE-171324
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the recent explosion of chemical libraries beyond a billion molecules, more efficient virtual screening approaches are needed. The Deep Docking (DD) platform enables up to 100-fold acceleration of structure-based virtual screening by docking only a subset of a chemical library, iteratively synchronized with a ligand-based prediction of the remaining docking scores. This method results in hundreds- to thousands-fold virtual hit enrichment (without significant loss of potential drug candidates) and hence enables the screening of billion molecule-sized chemical libraries without using extraordinary computational resources. Herein, we present and discuss the generalized DD protocol that has been proven successful in various computer-aided drug discovery (CADD) campaigns and can be applied in conjunction with any conventional docking program. The protocol encompasses eight consecutive stages: molecular library preparation, receptor preparation, random sampling of a library, ligand preparation, molecular docking, model training, model inference and the residual docking. The standard DD workflow enables iterative application of stages 3-7 with continuous augmentation of the training set, and the number of such iterations can be adjusted by the user. A predefined recall value allows for control of the percentage of top-scoring molecules that are retained by DD and can be adjusted to control the library size reduction. The procedure takes 1-2 weeks (depending on the available resources) and can be completely automated on computing clusters managed by job schedulers. This open-source protocol, at https://github.com/jamesgleave/DD_protocol , can be readily deployed by CADD researchers and can significantly accelerate the effective exploration of ultra-large portions of a chemical space.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceSmall Molecule LibrariesDrug DiscoveryLigandsMolecular Docking SimulationLigandsSmall Molecule Libraries

Identifiers

PMID35121854
OpenAlexW4210617107

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.