2010
DOI: 10.1039/c0cp00151a
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein–ligand docking: recent advances and future directions

Abstract: The scoring function is one of the most important components in structure-based drug design. Despite considerable success, accurate and rapid prediction of protein-ligand interactions is still a challenge in molecular docking. In this perspective, we have reviewed three basic types of scoring functions (force-field, empirical, and knowledge-based) and the consensus scoring technique that are used for protein-ligand docking. The commonly-used assessment criteria and publicly available protein-ligand databases f… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
342
1
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 426 publications
(348 citation statements)
references
References 131 publications
(205 reference statements)
3
342
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…incremental construction, exhaustive search) 21,22 . The binding energy associated to the different docking poses is calculated through the application of scoring functions (SF) that can be classified into knowledge-based, force field-based and empirical SFs 23,24 . Each of these and other methods implemented in the most popular docking programs has its own strenghts and limitations, therefore there is not a particular algorithm/SF combination outperforming the other ones in terms of reliablity and accuracy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…incremental construction, exhaustive search) 21,22 . The binding energy associated to the different docking poses is calculated through the application of scoring functions (SF) that can be classified into knowledge-based, force field-based and empirical SFs 23,24 . Each of these and other methods implemented in the most popular docking programs has its own strenghts and limitations, therefore there is not a particular algorithm/SF combination outperforming the other ones in terms of reliablity and accuracy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The structure is constructed using pairwise potentials derived from known receptor-ligand complexes (Ferreira et al, 2015;Kitchen et al, 2004). This is based on the inverse Boltzmann relation (vide infra), which comes from statistical mechanics and as such involves mean force potentials instead of real ones (Huang, Grinter & Zou, 2010). For example, consider the Equation 4.…”
Section: Knowledge-basedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given the different scopes of scoring functions and algorithms it is expected that they complement each other. However, since scoring functions are constructed with different bases their comparison and combination is not straightforward (Huang, Grinter & Zou, 2010). A first attempt was made by Charifson, Corkery, Murcko & Walters, 1999).…”
Section: Consensus Dockingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Most virtual screening studies are hampered by the selection of the appropriate docking programs or scoring functions based on a single crystal structure [21] . However, proteins are dynamically flexible macromolecules, and different structures of a protein may show different recognition abilities towards even the same ligand.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%