Performance Evaluation of 2D Fingerprint and 3D Shape Similarity Methods in Virtual Screening

被引:106
作者
Hu, Guoping [1 ]
Kuang, Guanglin [1 ]
Xiao, Wen [1 ]
Li, Weihua [1 ]
Liu, Guixia [1 ]
Tang, Yun [1 ]
机构
[1] E China Univ Sci & Technol, Sch Pharm, Shanghai Key Lab New Drug Design, Shanghai 200237, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
MOLECULAR DOCKING; ACCURATE DOCKING; ENRICHMENT; DESCRIPTORS; PREDICTION; INHIBITORS; GLIDE;
D O I
10.1021/ci300030u
中图分类号
R914 [药物化学];
学科分类号
100705 [微生物与生化药学];
摘要
Virtual screening (VS) can be accomplished in either ligand- or structure-based methods. in recent times, an increasing number of 2D fingerprint and 3D shape similarity methods have been used in ligand-based VS. To evaluate the performance of these ligand-based methods, retrospective VS was performed on a tailored directory of useful decoys (DUD). The VS performances of 14 2D fingerprints and four 3D shape similarity methods were compared. The results revealed that 2D fingerprints ECFP_2 and FCFP_4 yielded better performance than the 3D Phase Shape methods. These ligand-based methods were also compared with structure-based methods, such as Glide docking and Prime molecular mechanics generalized Born surface area rescoring, which demonstrated that both 2D fingerprint and 3D shape similarity methods could yield higher enrichment during early retrieval of active compounds. The results demonstrated the superiority of ligand-based methods over the docking-based screening in terms of both speed and hit enrichment. Therefore, considering ligand-based methods first in any VS workflow would be a wise option.
引用
收藏
页码:1103 / 1113
页数:11
相关论文
共 54 条
[1]
[Anonymous], 2009, LIGPREP VERS 2 3
[2]
[Anonymous], 2009, MAESTR VERS 9 0
[3]
[Anonymous], 2009, STRIK VERS 1 8
[4]
[Anonymous], 2009, PRIM VERS 2 1
[5]
Further development of reduced graphs for identifying bioactive compounds [J].
Barker, EJ ;
Gardiner, EJ ;
Gillet, VJ ;
Kitts, P ;
Morris, J .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES, 2003, 43 (02) :346-356
[6]
How Similar Are Similarity Searching Methods? A Principal Component Analysis of Molecular Descriptor Space [J].
Bender, Andreas ;
Jenkins, Jeremy L. ;
Scheiber, Josef ;
Sukuru, Sai Chelan K. ;
Glick, Meir ;
Davies, John W. .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2009, 49 (01) :108-119
[7]
Chemical space sampling by different scoring functions and crystal structures [J].
Brooijmans, Natasja ;
Humblet, Christine .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-AIDED MOLECULAR DESIGN, 2010, 24 (05) :433-447
[8]
Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on a Diverse Test Set [J].
Cheng, Tiejun ;
Li, Xun ;
Li, Yan ;
Liu, Zhihai ;
Wang, Renxiao .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2009, 49 (04) :1079-1093
[9]
Comparing protein-ligand docking programs is difficult [J].
Cole, JC ;
Murray, CW ;
Nissink, JWM ;
Taylor, RD ;
Taylor, R .
PROTEINS-STRUCTURE FUNCTION AND BIOINFORMATICS, 2005, 60 (03) :325-332
[10]
Comparison of Several Molecular Docking Programs: Pose Prediction and Virtual Screening Accuracy [J].
Cross, Jason B. ;
Thompson, David C. ;
Rai, Brajesh K. ;
Baber, J. Christian ;
Fan, Kristi Yi ;
Hu, Yongbo ;
Humblet, Christine .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2009, 49 (06) :1455-1474