Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42463131›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2026

Benchmarking Docking Protocols on Predicting Alternative Binding Modes.

Alžbeta Kubincová, Süleyman Selim Çinaroǧlu, Jianna Ongsioco, David F Hahn, Vytautas Gapsys, Gary Tresadern, David L Mobley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Bridging between Structure-Based and Data-Driven Affinity Prediction.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    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

7 authors.

Alžbeta KubincováDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California92697, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6518-681X
Süleyman Selim ÇinaroǧluDepartment of Bioengineering, Ege University, Bornova35040, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0001-7120-3540
Jianna OngsiocoDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California92697, United States.
David F HahnComputational Chemistry, Janssen Research and Development, Janssen Pharmaceuticals N. V., Turnhoutseweg 30, Beerse2340, Belgium.
Vytautas GapsysComputational Chemistry, Janssen Research and Development, Janssen Pharmaceuticals N. V., Turnhoutseweg 30, Beerse2340, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6761-7780
Gary TresadernComputational Chemistry, Janssen Research and Development, Janssen Pharmaceuticals N. V., Turnhoutseweg 30, Beerse2340, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-4801-1644
David L MobleyDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California92697, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1083-5533

Funding

Accelerating drug discovery via ML-guided iterative design and optimizationR35GM148236 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI David Lowell Mobley · 2023 to 2026
$2.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM148236
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The quality of protein-ligand binding affinity prediction is often limited by the accuracy of positioning the ligand correctly inside the binding site. However, pose accuracy is a secondary concern in high-throughput virtual screening, which is the application scenario in mind when most docking protocols are developed. On the other hand, similar protocols are also applied to position ligands in the binding pocket prior to free-energy calculations, and the accuracy of docking protocols is not well known in this case, especially when structures of analogues are available as templates to guide the docking, as is typical in lead optimization. Docking benchmarks typically focus on the ability of docking methods to generate poses with a low RMSD to crystal structures, but for physics-based affinity prediction methods, we also need the ability to identify potential alternate binding modes of a new ligand that might be viable. This is especially relevant for ligand modifications that break local symmetry, leading to multiple potential substituent orientations, such as substitutions of phenyl rings. Here, our focus is on assessment of pose prediction methods when the bound structure of a reference ligand is known (typical in structure-based drug design) and the likely binding mode(s) of a related compound are needed, and we focus on cases where the new compound has multiple potential binding modes. To assess templated docking protocols on their ability to identify binding modes when starting from a solid reference structure, we collected a set of 60 complex structures from the PDB that have more than one ligand binding mode - shown in the PDB records as alternative locations in the ligand. Our results suggest success rates of only 30-50% for finding alternative binding modes, which are modest compared to benchmarks of the same docking programs on the Astex diverse set (70-90% success rates). Overall, we conclude that docking methods would benefit from further tuning or improvement to become more effective in lead optimization.

Indexed as

Molecular Docking SimulationProteinsBenchmarkingBinding SitesDrug DesignLigandsProtein BindingProtein ConformationLigandsProteins

Identifiers

PMID42463131
PMCPMC13401895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.