Comparing AutoDock and Vina in Ligand/Decoy Discrimination for Virtual Screening

Abstract

AutoDock and Vina are two of the most widely used protein-ligand docking programs. The fact that these programs are free and available under an open source license, also makes them a very popular first choice for many users and a common starting point for many virtual screening campaigns, particularly in academia. Here, we evaluated the performance of AutoDock and Vina against an unbiased dataset containing 102 protein targets, 22,432 active compounds and 1,380,513 decoy molecules. In general, the results showed that the overall performance of Vina and AutoDock was comparable in discriminating between actives and decoys. However, the results varied significantly with the type of target. AutoDock was better in discriminating ligands and decoys in more hydrophobic, poorly polar and poorly charged pockets, while Vina tended to give better results for polar and charged binding pockets. For the type of ligand, the tendency was the same for both Vina and AutoDock. Bigger and more flexible ligands still presented a bigger challenge for these docking programs. A set of guidelines was formulated, based on the strengths and weaknesses of both docking program and their limits of validation.of the poses previously created, discriminating between the best and not so good alternatives [1,5]. This estimate, which in some cases is a prediction of the free energy of binding, must be able to discriminate between molecules that bind to the target and those that do not [23]. When looking at the two enantiomers, for example, it is still not possible to identify the most active form with most of the scoring functions used by the most common docking software [24].Even with all the significant improvements in computational power and docking software, considering all interactions that happen when a ligand binds to its target is an extremely challenging task. In order to be rigorous, the scoring functions would have to be much more complex, involve quantum calculations and, thus, these assays would turn out to be considerably expensive and time-consuming. When applying a virtual screening protocol, one wishes to screen very large databases of compounds in a relatively small period of time and, therefore, scoring functions are often simplified to improve the speed and cost of the computational screenings [6]. These simplifications come with a cost in accuracy, which might not be problematic for one ligand-target situation but takes a much more challenging scope when talking about virtual screening of thousands or millions of compounds [5].The goal of virtual screening (VS) is to guide the selection of molecules for experimental testing. In these assays, millions of compounds are docked into one specific target and only a selection of the top scores proceeds for experimental testing. If a scoring functions fails to identify a potential strong binder, then, it remains hidden among those million compounds, despite their pharmacological potential. In fact, that is one of the main problems in VS, the false negatives, or molecules that the docki...

In Silico Analyses and Cytotoxicity Study of Asiaticoside and Asiatic Acid from Malaysian Plant as Potential mTOR Inhibitors

“…Although the choice of AutoDock 4.2.6 was not necessarily better than AutoDock Vina [ 85 ], redocking was carried out to give further insight into the binding site from different tools. In addition, the binding sites of both FKBP5 and FRB were mostly hydrophobic; thus, AutoDock 4.2.6, which was better in discriminating the ligands in hydrophobic binding site than Autodock Vina, was used [ 86 ]. AutoDock 4.2.6 has parameters of Lamarckian Genetic Algorithm (LGA) as follows: 100 search runs, a population size of 150, elitism of 1, mutation rate of 0.02, crossover rate of 0.80, local search rate of 0.06, and energy evaluation of 2,500,000.…”

Predicting Potential SARS-COV-2 Drugs—In Depth Drug Database Screening Using Deep Neural Network Framework SSnet, Classical Virtual Screening and Docking

“…We caution in over-interpreting smina results from this class of compounds as the high-degree of freedom leads to difficulties in obtaining consistent high-affinity poses. Issues with large flexible molecules is a known limitation of existing computational docking algorithms [ 64 , 65 ]. The ability of SSnet to circumvent these issues and selectively identify high probability binders demonstrates the efficacy of using SSnet as a front-end to drug discovery.…”

Uncovering New Drug Properties in Target-Based Drug–Drug Similarity Networks

“…As such, we recommend that future, more focused, research continue our docking simulations by including target baits (to reflect the limitations of false-positive and false-negative results), considering solvent effects, flexible docking, and comparing multiple docking tools. To this end, we indicate the robust docking methodologies employed in [ 68 , 81 , 82 , 83 ].…”