Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40491848›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioinformatics2025

Quality over quantity: how to get the best results when using docking for repurposing.

Lenin Domínguez-Ramírez, Maricruz Anaya-Ruiz, Paulina Cortés-Hernández

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Dual PTP1B/DPP4 Inhibitory Potential ofComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Lenin Domínguez-RamírezComputational Biochemistry Laboratory, Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Oriente (CIBIOR), Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS), Atlixco, Mexico.
Maricruz Anaya-RuizCancer Cell Biology, Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Oriente (CIBIOR), Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS), Atlixco, Mexico.
Paulina Cortés-HernándezComputational Biochemistry Laboratory, Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Oriente (CIBIOR), Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS), Atlixco, Mexico.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular docking is among the fastest and most readily available computational tools to explore protein-ligand interactions. However, little effort has been put into assessing the quality of its results. In this paper, we compared eight free license docking programs to screen a drug library against the human target, phosphodiesterase 5A (PDE5A), to evaluate their ability to find its known ligand, sildenafil, and other ligands that became erectile dysfunction drugs because they inhibit this target. GNINA was superior at identifying the known target because it offers a convolutional neural network (CNN) score that ranks the quality of docking results. Using this CNN score improved the ranking of known positives. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed that all docking suites lack specificity; that is, they often misidentify true negatives. Employing a CNN score cutoff before ranking by docking affinity raised specificity with a small loss in sensitivity. After the cutoff, datasets became smaller but of higher quality. We propose a heuristic to produce relevant docking results, which includes an overall evaluation of the target on docking performance through ROC and an improvement of candidate binder selection using a CNN score cutoff of 0.9.

Indexed as

AutoDock Vinaconvolutional neural networkDock6dockingdrug repurposingGNINAUCSF ZINCvirtual screening

Identifiers

PMID40491848
PMCPMC12146287

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.