Are predefined decoy sets of ligand poses able to quantify scoring function accuracy?

Abstract

Due to the large number of different docking programs and scoring functions available, researchers are faced with the problem of selecting the most suitable one when starting a structure-based drug discovery project. To guide the decision process, several studies comparing different docking and scoring approaches have been published. In the context of comparing scoring function performance, it is common practice to use a predefined, computer-generated set of ligand poses (decoys) and to reevaluate their score using the set of scoring functions to be compared. But are predefined decoy sets able to unambiguously evaluate and rank different scoring functions with respect to pose prediction performance? This question arose when the pose prediction performance of our piecewise linear potential derived scoring functions (Korb et al. in J Chem Inf Model 49:84-96, 2009) was assessed on a standard decoy set (Cheng et al. in J Chem Inf Model 49:1079-1093, 2009). While they showed excellent pose identification performance when they were used for rescoring of the predefined decoy conformations, a pronounced degradation in performance could be observed when they were directly applied in docking calculations using the same test set. This implies that on a discrete set of ligand poses only the rescoring performance can be evaluated. For comparing the pose prediction performance in a more rigorous manner, the search space of each scoring function has to be sampled extensively as done in the docking calculations performed here. We were able to identify relative strengths and weaknesses of three scoring functions (ChemPLP, GoldScore, and Astex Statistical Potential) by analyzing the performance for subsets of the complexes grouped by different properties of the active site. However, reasons for the overall poor performance of all three functions on this test set compared to other test sets of similar size could not be identified.

Busca Virtual De Compostos Bioativos: Conceitos E Aplicações

“…Um exemplo deste tipo de função de ranqueamento é a Goldscore. 152 (2) Empíricas: calculam o valor de energia da interação ligante-receptor usando uma equação complexa com vários termos, que descreve propriedades reconhecidas como importantes para a interação ligante-receptor. Séries de treinamento e métodos de regressão multivariada são usados para otimizar os valores dos coeficientes que descrevem a contribuição de cada termo para a equação.…”

Impressive Enrichment of Semiempirical Quantum Mechanics‐Based Scoring Function: HSP90 Protein with 4541 Inhibitors and Decoys

“…In other words, the AUC is the average of this property over all inactive fractions. [34] Each scoring function has been therefore sampled extensively to fill the active pocket as complete as possible. [32] [33] pROC AUC values for random enrichment were determined as follows [Eq.…”

Design, synthesis, spectroscopic characterization and anti-psychotic investigation of some novel Azo dye/Schiff base/Chalcone derivatives

“…A setup of 26 different ligands was built in ChemDraw (Table 1), and the 2D structure was converted to the 3D structure using molegro virtual software [12]. The best 3D structure of ligand was selected from energy minimization through molecular objective functions and modeller score in MVD [13,14]. The properties of each ligand such as absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion were also studied.…”