Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38505677›Full record

ArticleBioImpacts : BI2024

Benchmarking different docking protocols for predicting the binding poses of ligands complexed with cyclooxygenase enzymes and screening chemical libraries.

Sara Shamsian, Babak Sokouti, Siavoush Dastmalchi

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioImpacts : BI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Combined Modeling Approaches for Assessing Sodium-Iodide Symporter Inhibition.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. How many crystal structures do you need to trust your docking results?bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Sara ShamsianStudent Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, 5165665931, ‎Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3876-6335
Babak SokoutiBiotechnology Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, 5165665813, ‎Iran.
Siavoush Dastmalchi‎Department of Medicinal Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, Tabriz University of Medical ‎Sciences, Tabriz, 5166414766, Iran ‎.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9427-0770
Tabriz University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) constitute an important class of pharmaceuticals acting on cyclooxygenase COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes. Due to their numerous severe side effects, it is necessary to search for new selective, safe, and effective anti-inflammatory drugs. Methods: In the current work, the performances of five popular molecular docking programs, namely, GOLD, AutoDock, FlexX, Molegro Virtual Docker (MVD) and Glide to predict the binding mode of co- crystallized inhibitors in the structures of known complexes available for cyclooxygenases were evaluated. Furthermore, the best performers, Glide, AutoDock, GOLD and FlexX, were further evaluated in docking-based virtual screening of libraries consisted of active ligands and decoy molecules for cyclooxygenase enzymes and the obtained docking scores were assessed by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. Results: The results of docking experiments indicated that Glide program outperformed other docking programs by correctly predicting the binding poses (RMSD less than 2 Å) of all studied co-crystallized ligands of COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes (i.e., the performance was 100%). However, the performances of the other studied docking methods for correctly predicting the binding poses of the ligands were between 59% to 82%. Virtual screening results treated by ROC analysis revealed that all tested methods are useful tools for classification and enrichment of molecules targeting COX enzymes. The obtained AUCs range between 0.61-0.92 with enrichment factors of 8 - 40 folds. Conclusion: The obtained results support the importance of choosing appropriate docking method for predicting ligand-receptor binding modes, and provide specific information about docking calculations on COXs ligands.

Indexed as

Drug discoveryMolecular dockingNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugsROC analysis

Identifiers

PMID38505677
PMCPMC10945300
OpenAlexW4387435884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.