ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2026
Benchmarking Docking Protocols on Predicting Alternative Binding Modes.
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.
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.
- Bridging between Structure-Based and Data-Driven Affinity Prediction.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.