2019
DOI: 10.26434/chemrxiv.8100203
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

SuCOS is Better than RMSD for Evaluating Fragment Elaboration and Docking Poses

Abstract: One of the fundamental assumptions of fragment-based drug discovery is that the fragment’s binding mode will be conserved upon elaboration into larger compounds. The most common way of quantifying binding mode similarity is Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD), but Protein Ligand Interaction Fingerprint (PLIF) similarity and shape-based metrics are sometimes used. We introduce SuCOS, an open-source shape and chemical feature overlap metric. We explore the strengths and weaknesses of RMSD, PLIF similarity, and SuC… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To circumvent the above mentioned drawbacks of RMSD, several alternatives have been proposed, however, they were designed and tested, to the best of our knowledge, exclusively for protein complexes. The list includes methods such as RSR (Real Space R-factor, which measures how well a group of ligand atoms fits the experimental electron density, [ 82 ]), GARD (Generally Applicable Replacement for rmsD, which takes into account relative importance to binding of atoms, [ 81 ]), TFD (Torsion Fingerprint Deviation, which compares conformations of molecules [ 83 ]), or SuCOS (for assessing shape complementarity and overlapping of chemical features [ 84 ]). Also, several metrics utilizing a comparison of contacts between proteins and ligands have been proposed.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To circumvent the above mentioned drawbacks of RMSD, several alternatives have been proposed, however, they were designed and tested, to the best of our knowledge, exclusively for protein complexes. The list includes methods such as RSR (Real Space R-factor, which measures how well a group of ligand atoms fits the experimental electron density, [ 82 ]), GARD (Generally Applicable Replacement for rmsD, which takes into account relative importance to binding of atoms, [ 81 ]), TFD (Torsion Fingerprint Deviation, which compares conformations of molecules [ 83 ]), or SuCOS (for assessing shape complementarity and overlapping of chemical features [ 84 ]). Also, several metrics utilizing a comparison of contacts between proteins and ligands have been proposed.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To circumvent the above mentioned drawbacks of RMSD, several alternatives have been proposed, however, they were designed and tested, to the best of our knowledge, exclusively for protein complexes. The list includes methods such as RSR (Real Space R-factor, which measures how well a group of ligand atoms fits the experimental electron density, (63)), GRAD (Generally Applicable Replacement for rmsD, which takes into account relative importance to binding of atoms, (64)), TFD (Torsion Fingerprint Deviation, which compares conformations of molecules (65)), or SuCOS (for assessing shape complementarity and overlapping of chemical features (66)). Also, several metrics utilizing a comparison of contacts between proteins and ligands have been proposed.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Leung et al . benchmarked the PLIF similarity (Protein-Ligand Interaction Fingerprint) as a metric for evaluating docking of the ligands to proteins (66). They concluded that this metric, contrary to ligand-centric ones (such as the RMSD and SuCOS), was able to capture information about interactions across multiple crystal structures of ligands bound to the same protein, making it a handy feature for experiments where multiple protein conformations are used.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The performance of docking programs is often assessed by their ability to reproduce the crystallographic pose of the bound ligand. A common metric to evaluate the difference between the predicted binding pose and the crystallographic pose is the heavy-atoms root mean square displacement (RMSD) [ 1 ], although other metrics have been suggested [ 2 ]. RMSD calculations are also used in other contexts, for example for the evaluation of diversity in generated conformers [ 3 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%