ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2022
Assessing How Residual Errors of Scoring Functions Correlate to Ligand Structural Features.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scoring functions (SFs) are ubiquitous tools for early stage drug discovery. However, their accuracy currently remains quite moderate. Despite a number of successful target-specific SFs appearing recently, up until now, no ideas on how to systematically improve the general scope of SFs have been formulated. In this work, we hypothesized that the specific features of ligands, corresponding to interactions well appreciated by medicinal chemists (e.g., hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic and aromatic interactions), might be responsible, in part, for the remaining SF errors. The latter provides direction to efforts aimed at the rational and systematic improvement of SF accuracy. In this proof-of-concept work, we took a CASF-2016 coreset of 285 ligands as a basis for comparison and calculated the values of scores for a representative panel of SFs (including AutoDock 4.2, AutoDock Vina, X-Score, NNScore2.0, ΔVina RF20, and DSX). The residual error of linear correlation of each SF value, with the experimental values of affinity and activity, was then analyzed in terms of its correlation with the presence of the fragments responsible for certain medicinal chemistry defined interactions. We showed that, despite the fact that SFs generally perform reasonably, there is room for improvement in terms of better parameterization of interactions involving certain fragments in ligands. Thus, this approach opens a potential way for the systematic improvement of SFs without their significant complication. However, the straightforward application of the proposed approach is limited by the scarcity of reliable available data for ligand-receptor complexes, which is a common problem in the field.
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.