2018
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.7b01194
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Diverse Benchmark Based on 3D Matched Molecular Pairs for Validating Scoring Functions

Abstract: The prediction of protein–ligand interactions and their corresponding binding free energy is a challenging task in structure-based drug design and related applications. Docking and scoring is broadly used to propose the binding mode and underlying interactions as well as to provide a measure for ligand affinity or differentiate between active and inactive ligands. Various studies have revealed that most docking software packages reliably predict the binding mode, although scoring remains a challenge. Here, a d… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…1 C). This is also supported by evidences from Kalinowsky et al [ 30 ]. Furthermore, the scoring function was also tested against a group of related eicosonoides – 20-hydroxyecdysone, farnesoic acid, farnesol, dinoprostone, methyl farnesoate, lipoxin A4, methroprene, JHI, JHII, and JHIII (control) - which have been shown to demonstrate relatively varied binding affinity to MJHBP in vitro (with respect to the control, JHIII) in a study by Kim et al [ 18 ].…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…1 C). This is also supported by evidences from Kalinowsky et al [ 30 ]. Furthermore, the scoring function was also tested against a group of related eicosonoides – 20-hydroxyecdysone, farnesoic acid, farnesol, dinoprostone, methyl farnesoate, lipoxin A4, methroprene, JHI, JHII, and JHIII (control) - which have been shown to demonstrate relatively varied binding affinity to MJHBP in vitro (with respect to the control, JHIII) in a study by Kim et al [ 18 ].…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…A variety of similar MMP datasets exist in the literature, but not all of them are immediately amenable to setting up RBFE calculations or limited by other considerations. Therefore, the decision was made to compose a new dataset as we did not want to be limited to e.g., cases where crystal structures are available for both protein−ligand complexes (as for instance described by Kalinowsky et al 6 ), since one protein structure is sufficient to set up an RBFE calculation and the small structural changes in our MMPs make a change in ligand binding mode unlikely. Similarly, the Baumgartner et al 7 dataset construction followed a different objective and required 10 MMPs per protein data bank (PDB) ligand.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 1 from Tyrchan and Evertsson), but they usually maintain one-dimensional (1D) (molecular fingerprint) or two-dimensional (2D) (topology and substructure) representations of molecules. Only recently information on the three-dimensional molecular structure began to be incorporated into MMP analysis and therefore, few established approaches exist to generate three-dimensional (3D) models of e.g., ligand–receptor complexes of MMPs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The HLA-peptide complex structures are optimized with Amber10:EHT force field and Generalized Born solvation model in MOE. (5) Calculating affinity scores of the optimized structures in order to identify the peptides with high affinity to the target HLA molecule Scoring functions of Contact Energy [6], Affinity dG, London dG, and GBVI/WSA dG [7] available in MOE are calculated. Contact Energy estimates the transfer free energy based on the area of the water-accessible surface.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%