Consensus scoring for protein-ligand interactions

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 11, Issue 9-10, 2006, Pages 421-428

  Feher, Miklos ^a  

^a PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; PROTEIN;

ACCURACY; BINDING AFFINITY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFORMATION; CONSENSUS; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; ENERGY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PERFORMANCE; PREDICTION; PROTEIN INTERACTION; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; SCREENING; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; TECHNIQUE;

BINDING SITES; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DRUG DESIGN; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 33748667774     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2006.03.009     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Jorgensen W.L. The many roles of computation in drug discovery. Science 303 (2004) 1813-1818
2. Krovat E.M., et al. Recent advances in docking and scoring. Curr. Comp. Aided Drug Des. 1 (2005) 93-102
3. Mohan V., et al. Docking: successes and challenges. Curr. Pharm. Des. 11 (2005) 323-333
4. Schulz-Gasch T., and Stahl M. Scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions: a critical perspective. Drug Discov. Today: Technol. 1 (2004) 231-239
5. Kitchen D.B., et al. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3 (2004) 935-949
6. Lyne P.D. Structure-based virtual screening: an overview. Drug Discov. Today 7 (2002) 1047-1055
7. Kitchen D.B., et al. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3 (2004) 935-948
8. Ajay. On better generalization by combining two or more models: a quantitative structure-activity relationship example using neural networks. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. 24 (1994) 19-30
9. So S., and Karplus M. Evolutionary optimization in quantitative structure-activity relationship: an application of genetic neural networks. J. Med. Chem. 39 (1996) 1521-1530
10. Rogers D., and Hopfinger A.J. Application of genetic function approximation to quantitative structure-activity relationships and quantitative structure-property relationships. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 34 (1994) 854-866
11. Ginn C.M.R., et al. Similarity searching in files of three-dimensional chemical structures: evaluation of the EVA descriptor and combination of rankings using data fusion. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 37 (1996) 23-37
12. Charifson P.S., et al. Consensus Scoring: A Method for Obtaining Improved Hit Rates from Docking Databases of Three-Dimensional Structures into Proteins. J. Med. Chem. 42 (1999) 5100-5109
13. Stahl M., and Rarey M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 44 (2001) 1035-1042
14. Clark R.D., et al. Consensus scoring for ligand/protein interactions. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 20 (2002) 281-295
15. Paul N., and Rognan D. ConsDock: A New Program for the Consensus Analysis of Protein-Ligand Interactions. Proteins 47 (2002) 521-533
16. Verdonk M.L., et al. Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: Avoiding artificial enrichment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004) 793-806
17. Bissantz C., et al. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J. Med. Chem. 43 (2000) 4759-4767
18. Krovat E.M., and Langer T. Impact Of scoring functions on enrichment in docking-based virtual screening: an application study on renin inhibitors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004) 1123-1129
19. Mpamhanga C.P., et al. Retrospective docking study of PDE4B ligands and an analysis of the behavior of selected scoring functions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 45 (2005) 1061-1074
20. Bissantz C., et al. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. II. Are homology models of G-potein coupled receptors suitable targets?. Proteins 50 (2003) 5-25
21. Liu Z., et al. Virtual screening of novel noncovalent inhibitors for SARS-CoV 3C-like proteinase. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 45 (2005) 10-17
22. Ashton M., et al. The selection and design of GPCR ligands: from concept to the clinic. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen 7 (2004) 441-452
23. Lyne P.D., et al. Identification of compounds with nanomolar binding affinity for checkpoint kinase-1 using knowledge-based virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004) 1962-1968
24. Wang R., et al. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 46 (2003) 2287-2303
25. Cavasotto C.N., and Abagyan R.A. Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases. J. Mol. Biol. 337 (2004) 209-225
26. Barril X., and Morley S.D. Unveiling the full potential of flexible receptor docking using multiple crystallographic structures. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 4432-4443
27. Merlitz H., et al. Impact of receptor conformation on in silico screening performance. Chem. Phys. Lett. 390 (2004) 500-505
28. Gohlke H., and Klebe G. Approaches to the description and prediction of binding affinity of small molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 41 (2002) 2644-2676
29. Marsden P.M., et al. Predicting protein-ligand binding affinities: a low scoring game?. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2 (2004) 3267-3273
30. Wang R., et al. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction. J. Comp. Aided Mol. Des. 16 (2002) 11-26
31. Terp G.E., et al. A new concept for multidimensional selection of ligand conformations (MultiSelect) and multidimensional scoring (MultiScore) of protein-ligand binding affinities. J. Med. Chem. 44 (2001) 2333-2343
32. Jacobsson M., et al. Improving Structure-Based Virtual Screening by Multivariate Analysis of Scoring Data. J. Med. Chem. 46 (2003) 5781-5789
33. Prathipati P., and Saxena A.K. Evaluation of binary QSAR models derived from LUDI and MOE scoring functions for structure based virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Mod. 46 (2006) 39-51
34. Klon A.E., et al. Combination of a naïve Bayes classifier with consensus scoring improves enrichment of high-throughput docking results. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004) 4356-4359
35. Mestres J., and Knegtel R.M.A. Similarity versus docking in 3D virtual screening. Persp. Drug Disc. Des. 20 (2000) 191-207
36. Fradera X., et al. Similarity-driven flexible ligand docking. Proteins 40 (2000) 623-636
37. So S., and Karplus M. A comparative study of ligand-receptor complex binding affinity prediction methods based on glycogen phosphorylase inhibitors. J. Comp. Aided Mol. Des. 13 (1999) 243-258
38. Wang R., and Wang S. How Does Consensus Scoring Work for Virtual Library Screening? An Idealized Computer Experiment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41 (2001) 1422-1426
39. Baber C., et al. The use of consensus scoring in ligand-based virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model 46 (2006) 277-288
40. Cummings M.D., et al. Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 962-976
41. Xing L., et al. Evaluation and application of multiple scoring functions for a virtual screening experiment. J. Comp. Aided Mol. Des. 18 (2004) 333-344
42. Yang J.-M., et al. Consensus scoring criteria for improving enrichment in virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model 45 (2005) 1134-1146
43. Livingstone D. Data analysis for chemists. Applications to QSAR and chemical product design (1995), Oxford University Press