Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening

被引:330
作者
McGaughey, Georgia B.
Sheridan, Robert P.
Bayly, Christopher I.
Culberson, J. Chris
Kreatsoulas, Constantine
Lindsley, Stacey
Maiorov, Vladimir
Truchon, Jean-Francois
Cornell, Wendy D.
机构
[1] Merck Res Labs, Dept Mol Syst, West Point, PA 19486 USA
[2] Merck Res Labs, Dept Mol Syst, Rahway, NJ 07065 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1021/ci700052x
中图分类号
R914 [药物化学];
学科分类号
100701 ;
摘要
Virtual screening benchmarking studies were carried out on 11 targets to evaluate the performance of three commonly used approaches: 2D ligand similarity (Daylight, TOPOSIM), 3D ligand similarity (SQW, ROCS), and protein structure-based docking (FLOG, FRED, Glide). Active and decoy compound sets were assembled from both the MDDR and the Merck compound databases. Averaged over multiple targets, ligand-based methods outperformed docking algorithms. This was true for 3D ligand-based methods only when chemical typing was included. Using mean enrichment factor as a performance metric, Glide appears to be the best docking method among the three with FRED a close second. Results for all virtual screening methods are database dependent and can vary greatly for particular targets.
引用
收藏
页码:1504 / 1519
页数:16
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]  
BRADSHAW J, COMMUNICATION
[2]   Unsupervised data base clustering based on Daylight's fingerprint and Tanimoto similarity: A fast and automated way to cluster small and large data sets [J].
Butina, D .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES, 1999, 39 (04) :747-750
[3]   ATOM PAIRS AS MOLECULAR-FEATURES IN STRUCTURE ACTIVITY STUDIES - DEFINITION AND APPLICATIONS [J].
CARHART, RE ;
SMITH, DH ;
VENKATARAGHAVAN, R .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES, 1985, 25 (02) :64-73
[4]   Evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors [J].
Chen, HM ;
Lyne, PD ;
Giordanetto, F ;
Lovell, T ;
Li, J .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2006, 46 (01) :401-415
[5]   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
[6]  
Cornell WD, 2006, ANN REP COMP CHEM, V2, P297, DOI 10.1016/S1574-1400(06)02016-0
[7]  
CRIPPEN CM, 1988, DISTANCE GEOMETRY MO
[8]   Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools [J].
Cummings, MD ;
DesJarlais, RL ;
Gibbs, AC ;
Mohan, V ;
Jaeger, EP .
JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 2005, 48 (04) :962-976
[9]  
*DAYL CHEM INF SYS, 2003, VERS 4 82
[10]   Comparison of knowledge-based and distance geometry approaches for generation of molecular conformations [J].
Feuston, BP ;
Miller, MD ;
Culberson, JC ;
Nachbar, RB ;
Kearsley, SK .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES, 2001, 41 (03) :754-763