The application of statistical methods to cognate docking: A path forward?

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 54, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 1339-1355

  Hawkins, Paul C D ^a   Kelley, Brian P ^a   Warren, Gregory L ^a  

^a OpenEye Scientific Software Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA HANDLING; DOCKING; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; WELL TESTING;

DOCKING PROBLEMS; EFFECT SIZE; METHOD COMPARISON; NULL HYPOTHESIS; POSE PREDICTIONS; RIGOROUS ANALYSIS; SIGNIFICANCE TESTING; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

QUALITY CONTROL;

BINDING SITE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; ELECTRON; MOLECULAR DOCKING; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS;

BINDING SITES; ELECTRONS; MOLECULAR DOCKING SIMULATION; SOFTWARE; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84901610512     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci5001086     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Beuming, T.; Sherman, W. Current assessment of docking into GPCR crystal structures and homology models: Successes, challenges, and guidelines J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52, 3263-77
2. Brozell, S. R.; Mukherjee, S.; Balius, T. E.; Roe, D. R.; Case, D. A.; Rizzo, R. C. Evaluation of DOCK 6 as a pose generation and database enrichment tool J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2012, 26, 749-73
3. Chen, H.; Lyne, P. D.; Giordanetto, F.; Lovell, T.; Li, J. On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 401-15
4. Corbeil, C. R.; Moitessier, N. Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 3. Impact of input ligand conformation, protein flexibility, and water molecules on the accuracy of docking programs J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 997-1009
5. Corbeil, C. R.; Williams, C. I.; Labute, P. Variability in docking success rates due to dataset preparation J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2012, 26, 775-86
6. Cross, J. B.; Thompson, D. C.; Rai, B. K.; Baber, J. C.; Fan, K. Y.; Hu, Y.; Humblet, C. Comparison of several molecular docking programs: Pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 1455-74
7. Liebeschuetz, J. W.; Cole, J. C.; Korb, O. Pose prediction and virtual screening performance of GOLD scoring functions in a standardized test J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2012, 26, 737-48
8. McGann, M. FRED and HYBRID docking performance on standardized datasets J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2012, 26, 897-906
9. Mukherjee, S.; Balius, T. E.; Rizzo, R. C. Docking validation resources: Protein family and ligand flexibility experiments J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 1986-2000
10. Neves, M. A.; Totrov, M.; Abagyan, R. Docking and scoring with ICM: The benchmarking results and strategies for improvement J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2012, 26, 675-86
11. Novikov, F. N.; Stroylov, V. S.; Zeifman, A. A.; Stroganov, O. V.; Kulkov, V.; Chilov, G. G. Lead Finder docking and virtual screening evaluation with Astex and DUD test sets J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2012, 26, 725-35
12. Repasky, M. P.; Murphy, R. B.; Banks, J. L.; Greenwood, J. R.; Tubert-Brohman, I.; Bhat, S.; Friesner, R. A. Docking performance of the glide program as evaluated on the Astex and DUD datasets: A complete set of glide SP results and selected results for a new scoring function integrating WaterMap and glide J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2012, 26, 787-99
13. Schneider, N.; Hindle, S.; Lange, G.; Klein, R.; Albrecht, J.; Briem, H.; Beyer, K.; Claussen, H.; Gastreich, M.; Lemmen, C.; Rarey, M. Substantial improvements in large-scale redocking and screening using the novel HYDE scoring function J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2012, 26, 701-23
14. Spitzer, R.; Jain, A. N. Surflex-Dock: Docking benchmarks and real-world application J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2012, 26, 687-99
15. Verdonk, M. L.; Giangreco, I.; Hall, R. J.; Korb, O.; Mortenson, P. N.; Murray, C. W. Docking performance of fragments and druglike compounds J. Med. Chem. 2011, 54, 5422-31
16. Zhou, Z.; Felts, A. K.; Friesner, R. A.; Levy, R. M. Comparative performance of several flexible docking programs and scoring functions: Enrichment studies for a diverse set of pharmaceutically relevant targets J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1599-608
17. McGann, M. FRED pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2011, 51, 578-96
18. Warren, G. L.; Do, T. D.; Kelley, B. P.; Nicholls, A.; Warren, S. D. Essential considerations for using protein-ligand structures in drug discovery Drug Discovery Today 2012, 17, 1270-81
19. Hawkins, P. C. D.; Warren, G. L.; Skillman, A. G.; Nicholls, A. How to do an evaluation: Pitfalls and traps J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 179-90
20. Hawkins, P. C. D.; Nicholls, A. Conformer generation with OMEGA: Learning from the data set and the analysis of failures J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52, 2919-36
21. Kleywegt, G. J. Validation of protein crystal structures Acta Crystallogr., Sect. D.: Biol. Crystallogr. 2000, 56, 249-265
22. Yusuf, D.; Davis, A. M.; Kleywegt, G. J.; Schmitt, S. An alternative method for the evaluation of docking performance: RSR vs RMSD J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 1411-22
23. Thomsen, R.; Christensen, M. H. MolDock: A new technique for high-accuracy molecular docking J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 3315-21
24. Bender, A.; Glen, R. C. A discussion of measures of enrichment in virtual screening: Comparing the information content of descriptors with increasing levels of sophistication J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 1369-75
25. Jones, E.; Oliphant, T. SciPy, version 0.1, 2013; available at www.scipy.org.
26. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A. G.; Buchner, A. G Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175-91
27. OpenEye Toolkits. http://www.eyesopen.com/toolkits.
28. Hawkins, P. C. D.; Skillman, A. G.; Warren, G. L.; Ellingson, B. A.; Stahl, M. T. Conformer generation with OMEGA: Algorithm and validation using high quality structures from the Protein Databank and Cambridge Structural Database J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 572-84
29. McGann, M. R.; Almond, H. R.; Nicholls, A.; Grant, J. A.; Brown, F. K. Gaussian docking functions Biopolymers 2003, 68, 76-90
30. Hartshorn, M. J.; Verdonk, M. L.; Chessari, G.; Brewerton, S. C.; Mooij, W. T.; Mortenson, P. N.; Murray, C. W. Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance J. Med. Chem. 2007, 50, 726-41
31. Weber, G. W.; Prossinger, H.; Seidler, H. Height depends on month of birth Nature 1998, 391, 754-55
32. Cole, J. C.; Murray, C. W.; Nissink, J. W.; Taylor, R. D.; Taylor, R. Comparing protein-ligand docking programs is difficult Proteins 2005, 60, 325-32
33. Baber, J. C.; Thompson, D. C.; Cross, J. B.; Humblet, C. GARD: A generally applicable replacement for RMSD J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 1889-900
34. Kroemer, R. T.; Vulpetti, A.; McDonald, J. J.; Rohrer, D. C.; Trosset, J. Y.; Giordanetto, F.; Cotesta, S.; McMartin, C.; Kihlen, M.; Stouten, P. F. Assessment of docking poses: Interactions-based accuracy classification (IBAC) versus crystal structure deviations J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 871-81
35. Hawkins, P. C.; Skillman, A. G.; Nicholls, A. Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools J. Med. Chem. 2007, 50, 74-82
36. Jones, T. A.; Zou, J. Y.; Cowan, S. W.; Kjeldgaard, M. Improved methods for building protein models in electron density maps and the location of errors in these models Acta Crystallogr., Sect. A: Found. Crystallogr. 1991, 47 (Part 2) 110-9
37. AFITT. http://www.eyesopen.com/afitt.
38. Blow, D. M. Rearrangement of Cruickshank's formulae for the diffraction-component precision index Acta Crystallogr., Sect. D: Biol. Crystallogr. 2002, 58, 792-7
39. Kleywegt, G. J.; Harris, M. R.; Zou, J. Y.; Taylor, T. C.; Wahlby, A.; Jones, T. A. The Uppsala Electron-Density Server Acta Crystallogr., Sect. D: Biol. Crystallogr. 2004, 60, 2240-9
40. Goto, J.; Kataoka, R.; Hirayama, N. Ph4Dock: Pharmacophore-based protein-ligand docking J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 6804-11
41. Anscombe, F. J. Graphs in statistical analysis Am. Stat. 1973, 27, 17-21
42. Efron, B. Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife Ann. Stat. 1979, 1-26
43. Rice, J. A. Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis, 3 rd ed.; Duxbury: Belmont, CA, 1995; Chapter 5.
44. Efron, B. Better bootstrap confidence intervals J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1987, 82, 171-85
45. Mazen, A. M. M.; Hemmasi, M.; Lewis, M. F. In search of power: A statistical power analysis of contemporary research in strategic management Acad. Manage. Proc. 1985, 1985, 30-4
46. Gigerenzer, G. We need statistical thinking, not statistical rituals Behav. Brain Sci. 1998, 21, 199-200
47. Sainani, K. The importance of accounting for correlated observations PM&R 2010, 2, 858-61
48. Student The probable error of a mean Biometrika 1908, 6, 1-25
49. Wilcoxon, F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods Biom. Bull. 1945, 1, 80-3
50. McNemar, Q. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages Psychometrika 1947, 12, 153-7
51. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paired-difference-test.
52. 2 test Suppl. J. R. Stat. Soc. 1934, 1, 217-235
53. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2 nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, 1988.
54. Casella, G.; Berger, R. L. Statistical Inference, 2 nd ed.; Duxbury: Pacific Grove, CA, 2002.
55. Ziliak, S. T.; Mccloskey, D. N. The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice and Lives; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, 2008.
56. Hoenig, J. M.; Heisey, D. M. The abuse of power Am. Stat. 2001, 55, 19-24
57. Tuccinardi, T.; Botta, M.; Giordano, A.; Martinelli, A. Protein kinases: Docking and homology modeling reliability J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 1432-41
58. Gelman, A.; Carlin, J. B.; Stern, H. S.; Rubin, D. B. Bayesian Data Analysis; CRC Press: Boca Raton, 2003.