Target-specific native/decoy pose classifier improves the accuracy of ligand ranking in the CSAR 2013 benchmark

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 55, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 63-71

  Fourches, Denis ^a   Politi, Regina ^a   Tropsha, Alexander ^a  

^a University of North Carolina   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION TREES; PROTEINS;

BINDING PROTEINS; CONSENSUS SCORING; MOLECULAR DOCKING; PROTEIN LIGANDS; ROOT MEAN SQUARE DEVIATIONS; SCORING FUNCTIONS; SPEARMAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS; TARGET PROTEINS;

LIGANDS;

LIGAND; PROTEIN;

BIOLOGY; CHEMICAL DATABASE; CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; METABOLISM; MOLECULAR DOCKING; PROCEDURES; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY; THEORETICAL MODEL; WORKFLOW;

BENCHMARKING; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASES, CHEMICAL; LIGANDS; MODELS, CHEMICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MOLECULAR DOCKING SIMULATION; PROTEINS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; WORKFLOW;

EID: 84921629247     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci500519w     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Shoichet, B. K. Virtual Screening of Chemical Libraries Nature 2004, 432, 862-865
2. Warren, G. L.; Andrews, C. W.; Capelli, A.-M.; Clarke, B.; LaLonde, J.; Lambert, M. H.; Lindvall, M.; Nevins, N.; Semus, S. F.; Senger, S.; Tedesco, G.; Wall, I. D.; Woolven, J. M.; Peishoff, C. E.; Head, M. S. A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 5912-5931
3. Scior, T.; Bender, A.; Tresadern, G.; Medina-Franco, J. L.; Martínez-Mayorga, K.; Langer, T.; Cuanalo-Contreras, K.; Agrafiotis, D. K. Recognizing Pitfalls in Virtual Screening: A Critical Review J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52, 867-881
4. Irwin, J. J. Community Benchmarks for Virtual Screening J. Comput.-Aided. Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 193-199
5. Tinberg, C. E.; Khare, S. D.; Dou, J.; Doyle, L.; Nelson, J. W.; Schena, A.; Jankowski, W.; Kalodimos, C. G.; Johnsson, K.; Stoddard, B. L.; Baker, D. Computational Design of Ligand-Binding Proteins with High Affinity and Selectivity Nature 2013, 501, 212-216
6. Damm-Ganamet, K. L.; Smith, R. D.; Dunbar, J. B.; Stuckey, J. A.; Carlson, H. A. CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2011-2012: Evaluation of Results from Docking and Relative Ranking of Blinded Congeneric Series J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013, 53, 1853-1870
7. Dunbar, J. B.; Smith, R. D.; Damm-Ganamet, K. L.; Ahmed, A.; Esposito, E. X.; Delproposto, J.; Chinnaswamy, K.; Kang, Y.-N.; Kubish, G.; Gestwicki, J. E.; Stuckey, J. A.; Carlson, H. A. CSAR Data Set Release 2012: Ligands, Affinities, Complexes, and Docking Decoys J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013, 53, 1842-1852
8. Da, C.; Kireev, D. Structural Protein-Ligand Interaction Fingerprints (SPLIF) for Structure-Based Virtual Screening: Method and Benchmark Study J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2014, 54, 2555-2561
9. Marcou, G.; Rognan, D. Optimizing Fragment and Scaffold Docking by Use of Molecular Interaction Fingerprints J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 195-207
10. Hsieh, J.-H.; Yin, S.; Wang, X. S.; Liu, S.; Dokholyan, N. V.; Tropsha, A. Cheminformatics Meets Molecular Mechanics: A Combined Application of Knowledge-Based Pose Scoring and Physical Force Field-Based Hit Scoring Functions Improves the Accuracy of Structure-Based Virtual Screening J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52, 16-28
11. Hsieh, J.-H.; Yin, S.; Liu, S.; Sedykh, A.; Dokholyan, N. V.; Tropsha, A. Combined Application of Cheminformatics- and Physical Force Field-Based Scoring Functions Improves Binding Affinity Prediction for CSAR Data Sets J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2011, 51, 2027-2035
12. Fourches, D.; Muratov, E.; Ding, F.; Dokholyan, N. V.; Tropsha, A. Predicting Binding Affinity of CSAR Ligands Using Both Structure-Based and Ligand-Based Approaches J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013, 53, 1915-1922
13. Chupakhin, V.; Marcou, G.; Baskin, I.; Varnek, A.; Rognan, D. Predicting Ligand Binding Modes from Neural Networks Trained on Protein-Ligand Interaction Fingerprints J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013, 53, 763-772
14. Ballester, P. J.; Schreyer, A.; Blundell, T. L. Does a More Precise Chemical Description of Protein-Ligand Complexes Lead to More Accurate Prediction of Binding Affinity? J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2014, 54, 944-955
15. Ballester, P. J.; Mitchell, J. B. O. A Machine Learning Approach to Predicting Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity with Applications to Molecular Docking Bioinformatics 2010, 26, 1169-1175
16. Zilian, D.; Sotriffer, C. A. SFCscore(RF): A Random Forest-Based Scoring Function for Improved Affinity Prediction of Protein-Ligand Complexes J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013, 53, 1923-1933
17. Sulimov, A. V.; Kutov, D. C.; Oferkin, I. V.; Katkova, E. V.; Sulimov, V. B. Application of the Docking Program SOL for CSAR Benchmark J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013, 53, 1946-1956
18. Holm, L.; Rosenstrom, P. Dali Server: Conservation Mapping in 3D Nucleic Acids Res. 2010, 38, W545-W549
19. Friesner, R. A.; Banks, J. L.; Murphy, R. B.; Halgren, T. A.; Klicic, J. J.; Mainz, D. T.; Repasky, M. P.; Knoll, E. H.; Shelley, M.; Perry, J. K.; Shaw, D. E.; Francis, P.; Shenkin, P. S. Glide: A New Approach for Rapid, Accurate Docking and Scoring. 1. Method and Assessment of Docking Accuracy J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 1739-1749
20. Watts, K. S.; Dalal, P.; Murphy, R. B.; Sherman, W.; Friesner, R. A.; Shelley, J. C. ConfGen: A Conformational Search Method for Efficient Generation of Bioactive Conformers J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 534-546
21. Parr, R. G.; Szentpály, L. v.; Liu, S. Electrophilicity Index J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 1922-1924
22. Liu, S.-B. Conceptual Density Functional Theory and Some Recent Developments Phys. Chim. Sin. 2009, 25, 590-600
23. Cherkasov, A.; Muratov, E. N.; Fourches, D.; Varnek, A.; Baskin, I. I.; Cronin, M.; Dearden, J.; Gramatica, P.; Martin, Y. C.; Todeschini, R.; Consonni, V.; Kuz'min, V. E.; Cramer, R.; Benigni, R.; Yang, C.; Rathman, J.; Terfloth, L.; Gasteiger, J.; Richard, A.; Tropsha, A. QSAR Modeling: Where Have You Been? Where Are You Going To? J. Med. Chem. 2014, 57, 4977-5010
24. Tropsha, A.; Golbraikh, A. Predictive QSAR Modeling Workflow, Model Applicability Domains, and Virtual Screening Curr. Pharm. Des. 2007, 13, 3494-3504
25. Fourches, D.; Muratov, E.; Tropsha, A. Trust, but Verify: On the Importance of Chemical Structure Curation in Cheminformatics and QSAR Modeling Research J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 1189-1204
26. Tropsha, A. Best Practices for QSAR Model Development, Validation, and Exploitation Mol. Inf. 2010, 29, 476-488
27. Golbraikh, A.; Tropsha, A. Beware of q2! J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2002, 20, 269-276
28. Varnek, A.; Fourches, D.; Horvath, D.; Klimchuk, O.; Gaudin, C.; Vayer, P.; Solov'ev, V.; Hoonakker, F.; Tetko, I. V.; Marcou, G. ISIDA-Platform for Virtual Screening Based on Fragment and Pharmacophoric Descriptors Curr. Comput.-Aided. Drug Des. 2008, 4, 191-198
29. Yin, S.; Biedermannova, L.; Vondrasek, J.; Dokholyan, N. V. MedusaScore: An Accurate Force Field-Based Scoring Function for Virtual Drug Screening J. Chem. Inf Model 2008, 48, 1656-1662