Loading…

Evaluating docking programs: keeping the playing field level

Over recent years many enrichment studies have been published which purport to rigorously compare the performance of two or more docking protocols. It has become clear however that such studies often have flaws within their methodologies, which cast doubt on the rigour of the conclusions. Setting up...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of computer-aided molecular design 2008-03, Vol.22 (3-4), p.229-238
Main Author: Liebeschuetz, John W.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-65ee4d67aa1ea0fb6881e6436d3d85addce70cf953e38d2bc77626d36cf336b83
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-65ee4d67aa1ea0fb6881e6436d3d85addce70cf953e38d2bc77626d36cf336b83
container_end_page 238
container_issue 3-4
container_start_page 229
container_title Journal of computer-aided molecular design
container_volume 22
creator Liebeschuetz, John W.
description Over recent years many enrichment studies have been published which purport to rigorously compare the performance of two or more docking protocols. It has become clear however that such studies often have flaws within their methodologies, which cast doubt on the rigour of the conclusions. Setting up such comparisons is fraught with difficulties and no best mode of practice is available to guide the experimenter. Careful choice of structural models and ligands appropriate to those models is important. The protein structure should be representative for the target. In addition the set of active ligands selected should be appropriate to the structure in cases where different forms of the protein bind different classes of ligand. Binding site definition is also an area in which errors arise. Particular care is needed in deciding which crystallographic waters to retain and again this may be predicated by knowledge of the likely binding modes of the ligands making up the active ligand list. Geometric integrity of the ligand structures used is clearly important yet it is apparent that published sets of actives + decoys may contain sometimes high proportions of incorrect structures. Choice of protocol for docking and analysis needs careful consideration as many programs can be tweaked for optimum performance. Should studies be run using ‘black box’ protocols supplied by the software provider? Lastly, the correct method of analysis of enrichment studies is a much discussed topic at the moment. However currently promoted approaches do not consider a crucial aspect of a successful virtual screen, namely that a good structural diversity of hits be returned. Overall there is much to consider in the experimental design of enrichment studies. Hopefully this study will be of benefit in helping others plan such experiments.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10822-008-9169-8
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70415644</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>36432824</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-65ee4d67aa1ea0fb6881e6436d3d85addce70cf953e38d2bc77626d36cf336b83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUtLw0AUhQdRbK3-ADcSXLiLzjsTcSOlPqDgRsHdMMnc1LR5mUkK_fdOSKEgiKs7zP3uuWfmIHRJ8C3BOLpzBCtKQ4xVGBMZh-oITYmIWMhjQY7RFMcUh1Lwzwk6c26N_Uws8SmaEEViySWZoofF1hS96fJqFdg63Qy1aetVa0p3H2wAmuGm-4KgKcxuOGc5FDYoYAvFOTrJTOHgYl9n6ONp8T5_CZdvz6_zx2WYcow77wCAWxkZQ8DgLJFKEZCcScusEsbaFCKcZrFgwJSlSRpFkvqmTDPGZKLYDN2Mut7Zdw-u02XuUigKU0HdOx1hToTk_F-Q-a1U0QG8_gWu676t_CM0JZKJmFPhITJCaVs710KmmzYvTbvTBOshAD0GoH0AeghAD1av9sJ9UoI9TOx_3AN0BJxvVStoD5v_Vv0Bce-Pvw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>216359425</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluating docking programs: keeping the playing field level</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Liebeschuetz, John W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Liebeschuetz, John W.</creatorcontrib><description>Over recent years many enrichment studies have been published which purport to rigorously compare the performance of two or more docking protocols. It has become clear however that such studies often have flaws within their methodologies, which cast doubt on the rigour of the conclusions. Setting up such comparisons is fraught with difficulties and no best mode of practice is available to guide the experimenter. Careful choice of structural models and ligands appropriate to those models is important. The protein structure should be representative for the target. In addition the set of active ligands selected should be appropriate to the structure in cases where different forms of the protein bind different classes of ligand. Binding site definition is also an area in which errors arise. Particular care is needed in deciding which crystallographic waters to retain and again this may be predicated by knowledge of the likely binding modes of the ligands making up the active ligand list. Geometric integrity of the ligand structures used is clearly important yet it is apparent that published sets of actives + decoys may contain sometimes high proportions of incorrect structures. Choice of protocol for docking and analysis needs careful consideration as many programs can be tweaked for optimum performance. Should studies be run using ‘black box’ protocols supplied by the software provider? Lastly, the correct method of analysis of enrichment studies is a much discussed topic at the moment. However currently promoted approaches do not consider a crucial aspect of a successful virtual screen, namely that a good structural diversity of hits be returned. Overall there is much to consider in the experimental design of enrichment studies. Hopefully this study will be of benefit in helping others plan such experiments.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0920-654X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-4951</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10822-008-9169-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18196461</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Animal Anatomy ; Binding sites ; Binding Sites - physiology ; Biotechnology ; Chemistry ; Chemistry and Materials Science ; Computer Applications in Chemistry ; Computer-Aided Design ; Evaluation Studies as Topic ; Experimental design ; Histology ; Models, Molecular ; Molecular biology ; Morphology ; Pharmacology ; Physical Chemistry ; Protein Binding - physiology ; Proteins ; Structural models</subject><ispartof>Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2008-03, Vol.22 (3-4), p.229-238</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-65ee4d67aa1ea0fb6881e6436d3d85addce70cf953e38d2bc77626d36cf336b83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-65ee4d67aa1ea0fb6881e6436d3d85addce70cf953e38d2bc77626d36cf336b83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18196461$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Liebeschuetz, John W.</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluating docking programs: keeping the playing field level</title><title>Journal of computer-aided molecular design</title><addtitle>J Comput Aided Mol Des</addtitle><addtitle>J Comput Aided Mol Des</addtitle><description>Over recent years many enrichment studies have been published which purport to rigorously compare the performance of two or more docking protocols. It has become clear however that such studies often have flaws within their methodologies, which cast doubt on the rigour of the conclusions. Setting up such comparisons is fraught with difficulties and no best mode of practice is available to guide the experimenter. Careful choice of structural models and ligands appropriate to those models is important. The protein structure should be representative for the target. In addition the set of active ligands selected should be appropriate to the structure in cases where different forms of the protein bind different classes of ligand. Binding site definition is also an area in which errors arise. Particular care is needed in deciding which crystallographic waters to retain and again this may be predicated by knowledge of the likely binding modes of the ligands making up the active ligand list. Geometric integrity of the ligand structures used is clearly important yet it is apparent that published sets of actives + decoys may contain sometimes high proportions of incorrect structures. Choice of protocol for docking and analysis needs careful consideration as many programs can be tweaked for optimum performance. Should studies be run using ‘black box’ protocols supplied by the software provider? Lastly, the correct method of analysis of enrichment studies is a much discussed topic at the moment. However currently promoted approaches do not consider a crucial aspect of a successful virtual screen, namely that a good structural diversity of hits be returned. Overall there is much to consider in the experimental design of enrichment studies. Hopefully this study will be of benefit in helping others plan such experiments.</description><subject>Animal Anatomy</subject><subject>Binding sites</subject><subject>Binding Sites - physiology</subject><subject>Biotechnology</subject><subject>Chemistry</subject><subject>Chemistry and Materials Science</subject><subject>Computer Applications in Chemistry</subject><subject>Computer-Aided Design</subject><subject>Evaluation Studies as Topic</subject><subject>Experimental design</subject><subject>Histology</subject><subject>Models, Molecular</subject><subject>Molecular biology</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>Pharmacology</subject><subject>Physical Chemistry</subject><subject>Protein Binding - physiology</subject><subject>Proteins</subject><subject>Structural models</subject><issn>0920-654X</issn><issn>1573-4951</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkUtLw0AUhQdRbK3-ADcSXLiLzjsTcSOlPqDgRsHdMMnc1LR5mUkK_fdOSKEgiKs7zP3uuWfmIHRJ8C3BOLpzBCtKQ4xVGBMZh-oITYmIWMhjQY7RFMcUh1Lwzwk6c26N_Uws8SmaEEViySWZoofF1hS96fJqFdg63Qy1aetVa0p3H2wAmuGm-4KgKcxuOGc5FDYoYAvFOTrJTOHgYl9n6ONp8T5_CZdvz6_zx2WYcow77wCAWxkZQ8DgLJFKEZCcScusEsbaFCKcZrFgwJSlSRpFkvqmTDPGZKLYDN2Mut7Zdw-u02XuUigKU0HdOx1hToTk_F-Q-a1U0QG8_gWu676t_CM0JZKJmFPhITJCaVs710KmmzYvTbvTBOshAD0GoH0AeghAD1av9sJ9UoI9TOx_3AN0BJxvVStoD5v_Vv0Bce-Pvw</recordid><startdate>20080301</startdate><enddate>20080301</enddate><creator>Liebeschuetz, John W.</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AL</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M0N</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080301</creationdate><title>Evaluating docking programs: keeping the playing field level</title><author>Liebeschuetz, John W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-65ee4d67aa1ea0fb6881e6436d3d85addce70cf953e38d2bc77626d36cf336b83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Animal Anatomy</topic><topic>Binding sites</topic><topic>Binding Sites - physiology</topic><topic>Biotechnology</topic><topic>Chemistry</topic><topic>Chemistry and Materials Science</topic><topic>Computer Applications in Chemistry</topic><topic>Computer-Aided Design</topic><topic>Evaluation Studies as Topic</topic><topic>Experimental design</topic><topic>Histology</topic><topic>Models, Molecular</topic><topic>Molecular biology</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>Pharmacology</topic><topic>Physical Chemistry</topic><topic>Protein Binding - physiology</topic><topic>Proteins</topic><topic>Structural models</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Liebeschuetz, John W.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest_Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Computing Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database‎ (1962 - current)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Computing Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Science Journals (ProQuest Database)</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies &amp; aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of computer-aided molecular design</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Liebeschuetz, John W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluating docking programs: keeping the playing field level</atitle><jtitle>Journal of computer-aided molecular design</jtitle><stitle>J Comput Aided Mol Des</stitle><addtitle>J Comput Aided Mol Des</addtitle><date>2008-03-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>3-4</issue><spage>229</spage><epage>238</epage><pages>229-238</pages><issn>0920-654X</issn><eissn>1573-4951</eissn><abstract>Over recent years many enrichment studies have been published which purport to rigorously compare the performance of two or more docking protocols. It has become clear however that such studies often have flaws within their methodologies, which cast doubt on the rigour of the conclusions. Setting up such comparisons is fraught with difficulties and no best mode of practice is available to guide the experimenter. Careful choice of structural models and ligands appropriate to those models is important. The protein structure should be representative for the target. In addition the set of active ligands selected should be appropriate to the structure in cases where different forms of the protein bind different classes of ligand. Binding site definition is also an area in which errors arise. Particular care is needed in deciding which crystallographic waters to retain and again this may be predicated by knowledge of the likely binding modes of the ligands making up the active ligand list. Geometric integrity of the ligand structures used is clearly important yet it is apparent that published sets of actives + decoys may contain sometimes high proportions of incorrect structures. Choice of protocol for docking and analysis needs careful consideration as many programs can be tweaked for optimum performance. Should studies be run using ‘black box’ protocols supplied by the software provider? Lastly, the correct method of analysis of enrichment studies is a much discussed topic at the moment. However currently promoted approaches do not consider a crucial aspect of a successful virtual screen, namely that a good structural diversity of hits be returned. Overall there is much to consider in the experimental design of enrichment studies. Hopefully this study will be of benefit in helping others plan such experiments.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><pmid>18196461</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10822-008-9169-8</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0920-654X
ispartof Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2008-03, Vol.22 (3-4), p.229-238
issn 0920-654X
1573-4951
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70415644
source Springer Nature
subjects Animal Anatomy
Binding sites
Binding Sites - physiology
Biotechnology
Chemistry
Chemistry and Materials Science
Computer Applications in Chemistry
Computer-Aided Design
Evaluation Studies as Topic
Experimental design
Histology
Models, Molecular
Molecular biology
Morphology
Pharmacology
Physical Chemistry
Protein Binding - physiology
Proteins
Structural models
title Evaluating docking programs: keeping the playing field level
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T10%3A34%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluating%20docking%20programs:%20keeping%20the%20playing%20field%20level&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20computer-aided%20molecular%20design&rft.au=Liebeschuetz,%20John%20W.&rft.date=2008-03-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=3-4&rft.spage=229&rft.epage=238&rft.pages=229-238&rft.issn=0920-654X&rft.eissn=1573-4951&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10822-008-9169-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E36432824%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-65ee4d67aa1ea0fb6881e6436d3d85addce70cf953e38d2bc77626d36cf336b83%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=216359425&rft_id=info:pmid/18196461&rfr_iscdi=true