Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on a Diverse Test Set

被引:411
作者
Cheng, Tiejun [1 ]
Li, Xun [1 ]
Li, Yan [1 ]
Liu, Zhihai [1 ]
Wang, Renxiao [1 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Acad Sci, Shanghai Inst Organ Chem, State Key Lab Bioorgan Chem, Shanghai 200032, Peoples R China
关键词
PROTEIN-LIGAND INTERACTIONS; FREE-ENERGY CALCULATIONS; BINDING-AFFINITY; AUTOMATED DOCKING; FLEXIBLE DOCKING; MOLECULAR-DOCKING; GENETIC ALGORITHM; DRUG DESIGN; PDBBIND DATABASE; VALIDATION;
D O I
10.1021/ci9000053
中图分类号
R914 [药物化学];
学科分类号
100701 ;
摘要
Scoring functions are widely applied to the evaluation of protein-ligand binding in structure-based drug design. We have conducted a comparative assessment of 16 popular scoring functions implemented in mainstream commercial software or released by academic research groups. A set of 195 diverse protein-ligand complexes with high-resolution crystal structures and reliable binding constants were selected through a systematic nonredundant sampling of the PDBbind database and used as the primary test set in our study. All scoring functions were evaluated in three aspects, that is, "docking power", "ranking power", and "scoring power", and all evaluations were independent from the context of molecular docking or virtual screening. As for "docking power", six scoring functions, including GOLD::ASP, DS::PLPI, DrugScore(PDB), GlideScore-SP, DS::LigScore, and GOLD:: ChemScore, achieved success rates over 70% when the acceptance cutoff was root-mean-square deviation < 2.0 angstrom Combining these scoring functions into consensus scoring schemes improved the success rates to 80% or even higher. As for "ranking power" and "scoring power", the top four scoring functions on the primary test set were X-Score, DrugScore(CSD), DS::PLP, and SYBYL::ChemScore. They were able to correctly rank the protein-ligand complexes containing the same type of protein with success rates around 50%. Correlation coefficients between the experimental binding; constants and the binding scores computed by these scoring functions ranged from 0.545 to 0.644. Besides the primary test set, each scoring function was also tested on four additional test sets, each consisting of a certain number of protein-ligand complexes containing one particular type of protein. Our study serves as an updated benchmark for evaluating the general performance of today's scoring functions. Our results indicate that no single scoring function consistently outperforms others in all three aspects. Thus, it is important in practice to choose the appropriate scoring functions for different purposes.
引用
收藏
页码:1079 / 1093
页数:15
相关论文
共 91 条
[1]   Structure-based drug design [J].
Amzel, LM .
CURRENT OPINION IN BIOTECHNOLOGY, 1998, 9 (04) :366-369
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2001, DISC STUD SOFTW VERS
[3]   NEW METHOD FOR PREDICTING BINDING-AFFINITY IN COMPUTER-AIDED DRUG DESIGN [J].
AQVIST, J ;
MEDINA, C ;
SAMUELSSON, JE .
PROTEIN ENGINEERING, 1994, 7 (03) :385-391
[4]  
Baxter CA, 1998, PROTEINS, V33, P367, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19981115)33:3<367::AID-PROT6>3.0.CO
[5]  
2-W
[6]   The Protein Data Bank [J].
Berman, HM ;
Westbrook, J ;
Feng, Z ;
Gilliland, G ;
Bhat, TN ;
Weissig, H ;
Shindyalov, IN ;
Bourne, PE .
NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH, 2000, 28 (01) :235-242
[7]   Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations [J].
Bissantz, C ;
Folkers, G ;
Rognan, D .
JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 2000, 43 (25) :4759-4767
[8]  
Blundell TL, 1996, NATURE, V384, P23
[9]   Prediction of binding constants of protein ligands: A fast method for the prioritization of hits obtained from de novo design or 3D database search programs [J].
Bohm, HJ .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-AIDED MOLECULAR DESIGN, 1998, 12 (04) :309-323