The impact of docking pose generation error on the prediction of binding affinity

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 8623, Issue , 2015, Pages 231-241

  Li, Hongjian ^a   Leung, Kwong Sak ^a   Wong, Man Hon ^a   Ballester, Pedro J ^b,c,d  

^a CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

^c INSTITUT PAOLI CALMETTES   (France)

^d AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

Author keywords

Chemical informatics; Molecular docking; Random forest; Scoring functions; Structural bioinformatics

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BINDING ENERGY; BIOINFORMATICS; DECISION TREES; FORECASTING; LEARNING SYSTEMS; LIGANDS; MOLECULES;

CHEMICAL INFORMATICS; MOLECULAR DOCKING; RANDOM FORESTS; SCORING FUNCTIONS; STRUCTURAL BIOINFORMATICS;

BINS;

EID: 84945454057     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-24462-4_20     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (12)

1. Ballester, P.J., et al.: Does a More Precise Chemical Description of Protein-Ligand Complexes Lead to More Accurate Prediction of Binding Affinity? J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54(3), 944–955 (2014)
2. Ballester, P.J., et al.: Hierarchical virtual screening for the discovery of new molecular scaffolds in antibacterial hit identification. J. R. Soc. Interface. 9(77), 3196–3207 (2012)
3. Ballester, P.J.: Machine learning scoring functions based on random forest and support vector regression. In: Shibuya, T., Kashima, H., Sese, J., Ahmad, S. (eds.) PRIB 2012. LNCS, vol. 7632, pp. 14–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
4. Ballester, P.J., Mitchell, J.B.O.: A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking. Bioinformatics 26(9), 1169–1175 (2010)
5. Ballester, P.J., Mitchell, J.B.O.: Comments on “leave-cluster-out cross-validation is appropriate for scoring functions derived from diverse protein data sets”: significance for the validation of scoring functions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 51(8), 1739–1741 (2011)
6. Breiman, L.: Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 45(1), 5–32 (2001)
7. Cheng, T., et al.: Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on a Diverse Test Set. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49(4), 1079–1093 (2009)
8. Li, H., et al.: istar: A Web Platform for Large-Scale Protein-Ligand Docking. PLoS One 9(1), e85678 (2014)
9. Li, H., et al.: iview: an interactive WebGL visualizer for protein-ligand complex. BMC Bioinformatics 15(1), 56 (2014)
10. Morris, G.M., et al.: AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J. Comput. Chem. 30(16), 2785–2791 (2009)
11. Morris, G.M., et al.: Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J. Comput. Chem. 19(14), 1639–1662 (1998)
12. Trott, O., Olson, A.J.: AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J. Comput. Chem. 31(2), 455–461 (2010)