首页> 外文期刊>Physical chemistry chemical physics: PCCP >Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power
【24h】

Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power

机译:对多种蛋白质-配体配合物的十个对接程序的综合评估:抽样能力和得分能力的预测准确性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

As one of the most popular computational approaches in modern structure-based drug design, molecular docking can be used not only to identify the correct conformation of a ligand within the target binding pocket but also to estimate the strength of the interaction between a target and a ligand. Nowadays, as a variety of docking programs are available for the scientific community, a comprehensive understanding of the advantages and limitations of each docking program is fundamentally important to conduct more reasonable docking studies and docking-based virtual screening. In the present study, based on an extensive dataset of 2002 protein-ligand complexes from the PDBbind database (version 2014), the performance of ten docking programs, including five commercial programs (LigandFit, Glide, GOLD, MOE Dock, and Surflex-Dock) and five academic programs (AutoDock, AutoDock Vina, LeDock, rDock, and UCSF DOCK), was systematically evaluated by examining the accuracies of binding pose prediction (sampling power) and binding affinity estimation (scoring power). Our results showed that GOLD and LeDock had the best sampling power (GOLD: 59.8% accuracy for the top scored poses; LeDock: 80.8% accuracy for the best poses) and AutoDock Vina had the best scoring power (r(p)/r(s) of 0.564/0.580 and 0.569/0.584 for the top scored poses and best poses), suggesting that the commercial programs did not show the expected better performance than the academic ones. Overall, the ligand binding poses could be identified in most cases by the evaluated docking programs but the ranks of the binding affinities for the entire dataset could not be well predicted by most docking programs. However, for some types of protein families, relatively high linear correlations between docking scores and experimental binding affinities could be achieved. To our knowledge, this study has been the most extensive evaluation of popular molecular docking programs in the last five years. It is expected that our work can offer useful information for the successful application of these docking tools to different requirements and targets.
机译:作为现代基于结构的药物设计中最流行的计算方法之一,分子对接不仅可用于识别靶标结合口袋中配体的正确构象,而且可用于估计靶标与药物分子之间相互作用的强度。配体。如今,由于科学界可以使用各种对接程序,因此全面了解每个对接程序的优点和局限性对于进行更合理的对接研究和基于对接的虚拟筛选至关重要。在本研究中,基于PDBbind数据库(2014版)中2002年蛋白质-配体复合物的广泛数据集,十个对接程序的性能,包括五个商业程序(LigandFit,Glide,GOLD,MOE Dock和Surflex-Dock) )和五个学术程序(AutoDock,AutoDock Vina,LeDock,rDock和UCSF DOCK)通过检查绑定姿势预测(采样能力)和绑定亲和力估计(得分能力)的准确性进行了系统评估。我们的结果表明,GOLD和LeDock具有最佳的采样能力(GOLD:得分最高的姿势的准确度为59.8%; LeDock:最优姿势的准确度为80.8%),而AutoDock Vina的得分能力最高(r(p)/ r( s)得分最高的姿势和最佳姿势分别为0.564 / 0.580和0.569 / 0.584),这表明商业程序没有表现出比学术程序更好的预期性能。总体而言,在大多数情况下,可以通过评估的对接程序识别配体结合姿势,但大多数对接程序无法很好地预测整个数据集的结合亲和力等级。但是,对于某些类型的蛋白质家族,可以实现对接得分与实验结合亲和力之间的较高线性相关性。据我们所知,该研究是过去五年对流行的分子对接程序的最广泛的评估。期望我们的工作可以为成功将这些对接工具应用于不同的需求和目标提供有用的信息。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号