CScore:A simple yet effective scoring function for protein ligand binding affinity prediction using modified cmac learning architecture

Journal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology

Volumn 9, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2011, Pages 1-14

  Ouyang, Xuchang ^a   Handoko, Stephanus Daniel ^a   Kwoh, Chee Keong ^a  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Cerebellar Model Articulation Controller; machine learning; Protein ligand docking; scoring function

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BINDING SITE; BIOLOGY; CHEMISTRY; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; PROTEIN DATABASE; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BINDING SITES; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASES, PROTEIN; LIGANDS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PROTEINS;

EID: 82355181271     PISSN: 02197200     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1142/S021972001100577X     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Kitchen D et al., Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: Methodsand applications, Nat Rev Drug Discov 3(11):935-949, 2004. (Pubitemid 39529931)
2. Halperin I et al., Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guideto scoring functions, Proteins 47(4):409-443, 2002. (Pubitemid 34614722)
3. Sousa S et al., Protein-ligand docking: Current status and future challenges, Proteins65:15-26, 2006. (Pubitemid 44320611)
4. Morris GM et al., AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selectivereceptor flexibility, J Comput Chem 30(16):2785-2791, 2009.
5. Ewing TJ et al., DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking offlexible molecule databases, J Comput Aid Mol Des 15:411-428, 2001. (Pubitemid 32452109)
6. Moitessier N et al., Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accuratedocking/scoring methods: A long way to go, Brit J Pharmacol 153(S1):S7-S26, 2008. (Pubitemid 351340987)
7. Kontoyianni M et al., Evaluation of docking performance: Comparative data on dockingalgorithms, J Med Chem 47(3):558-565, 2004. (Pubitemid 38129714)
8. Rarey M et al., A fast flexible docking method using an incremental constructionalgorithm, J Mol Biol 261(3):470-489, 1996. (Pubitemid 26335901)
9. Verdonk M et al., Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD, Proteins 52(4):609-623, 2003. (Pubitemid 37034158)
10. Cheng T et al., Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set,J Chem Inf Model 49(4):1079-1093, 2009.
11. Wang R, Lu Y, Wang S, Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for moleculardocking, J Med Chem 46(12):2287-2303, 2003. (Pubitemid 36637914)
12. Huang S et al., Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein-liganddocking: Recent advances and future directions, Phys Chem Chem Phys 12(40):12899-12908, 2010.
13. Kramer C, Gedeck P, Global free energy scoring functions based on distancedependentatom-type pair descriptors, J Chem Inf Model 51(3):707-720, 2011.
14. Ballester P, Mitchell J, A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligandbinding affinity with applications to molecular docking, Bioinformatics 26(9):1169,2010.
15. Albus J, A new approach to manipulator control: The cerebellar model articulationcontroller (CMAC), J Dynam Sys Measurement Control 97:220, 1975.
16. Wang R et al., The PDBbind database: Methodologies and updates, J Med Chem48(12):4111-4119, 2005. (Pubitemid 40800619)
17. Case D et al., The amber biomolecular simulation programs, J Comput Chem26(16):1668, 2005.
18. Jones G et al., Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm witha description of desolvation, J Mol Biol 245:43-53, 1995.
19. Jones G et al., Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking,J Mol Biol 267(3):727-748, 1997. (Pubitemid 27170693)
20. Trott O, Olson A, AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking witha new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multi-threading, J Comput Chem31(2):455-461, 2010.
21. Wang R et al., Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions forstructure-based binding affinity prediction, J Comput Aid Mol Des 16:11-26, 2002. (Pubitemid 34855041)
22. Kramer C, Gedeck P, Leave-cluster-out cross-validation is appropriate for scoringfunctions derived from diverse protein data sets, J Chem Inf Model 50(11):1961-1969,2010.
23. Chenna R et al., Multiple sequence alignment with the Clustal series of programs,Nucleic Acid Res 31(13):3497, 2003.