Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42454649›Full record

ArticleJournal of computational chemistry2026

Can Cavity Prediction Algorithms Help in Docking Experiments?

Diana A Kondinskaia, Bojana Popovic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computational chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Diana A KondinskaiaCambridge Crystallographic Data Centre, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8850-9091
Bojana PopovicCambridge Crystallographic Data Centre, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0756-5149

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blind docking is a method for predicting a binding mode of a ligand with a protein without any prior information about a binding site. Some tools allow this type of docking experiment directly, others, including some established tools, require binding site information being passed as an input. In this latter case, one can use cavity prediction tools and use the results of their prediction as an input in these docking calculations. However, it is still unclear if the results of these predictions can be reliably used in protein-ligand docking and what is the best technical way to pass this information to the docking algorithm. In this study we estimated the applicability of the binding pocket prediction tools in docking experiments to address this gap in knowledge. We use four different computational tools for cavity prediction and use the best predicted cavities represented in different ways to run GOLD docking calculations. Analysis of subsequent use in docking highlights that Fpocket and CAVIAR are the best performing cavity prediction tools in this context. Further analysis shows that accurate binding site input does not guarantee accurate binding pose predictions and, even with the predicted cavities, the more restrained the input is, the more reliable the docking results are.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMolecular Docking SimulationProteinsBinding SitesLigandsPrediction AlgorithmsProtein BindingLigandsProteinsbinding site predictioncavity predictiondrug discoverymolecular dockingprotein–ligand complexes

Identifiers

PMID42454649
PMCPMC13370847

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.