Unbiasing scoring functions: A new normalization and rescoring strategy

被引:47
作者
Carta, Giorgio [1 ]
Knox, Andrew J. S. [1 ]
Lloyd, David G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Dublin Trinity Coll, Sch Biochem & Immunol, Mol Design Grp, Dublin 2, Ireland
关键词
D O I
10.1021/ci600471m
中图分类号
R914 [药物化学];
学科分类号
100701 ;
摘要
Ligand bias can contribute significantly to the number of false positives observed in a virtual screening campaign. Using a receptor-based docking approach against a well-established target of therapeutic importance, estrogen receptor alpha (ER alpha), coupled with several common scoring functions (ChemGuass, ChemGauss2, ChemScore, ScreenScore, ShapeGauss, and PLP), taken both individually and as a consensus, we sought to examine the characteristics of molecules retrieved by each. It has been previously shown that scoring functions (mainly empirical) exhibit bias in prioritizing more complicated molecules arising from additive components within the function. Using Spearmen's correlation coefficient, we show that a large set of descriptors calculated for a docked set of molecules exhibit positive correlation with the ranked position in a hitlist. Moreover, most of these descriptors correlate well with MW. To this end, rather than penalizing the docked score of all heavy molecular weight (MW) molecules and rewarding those of lower MW, as is common practice, we examine the impact of penalizing the score only of those molecules which were of higher MW, leaving lower MW molecules unaffected. Here, we introduce a new power function to aid the process. Using scoring frequency analysis and SIFt fingerprints, we acheived a more meaningful analysis of virtual screening (VS) performance than with enrichment calculations, facilitating target-specific VS method development.
引用
收藏
页码:1564 / 1571
页数:8
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]   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
[2]   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
[4]   Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking [J].
Bursulaya, BD ;
Totrov, M ;
Abagyan, R ;
Brooks, CL .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-AIDED MOLECULAR DESIGN, 2003, 17 (11) :755-763
[5]  
*CHEM COMP GROUP, 2006, MOE VERS 2006 08
[6]   Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): A novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions [J].
Deng, Z ;
Chuaqui, C ;
Singh, J .
JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 2004, 47 (02) :337-344
[7]   Empirical scoring functions .1. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes [J].
Eldridge, MD ;
Murray, CW ;
Auton, TR ;
Paolini, GV ;
Mee, RP .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-AIDED MOLECULAR DESIGN, 1997, 11 (05) :425-445
[8]   Cheminformatics analysis and learning in a data pipelining environment [J].
Hassan, Moises ;
Brown, Robert D. ;
Varma-O'Brien, Shikha ;
Rogers, David .
MOLECULAR DIVERSITY, 2006, 10 (03) :283-299
[9]   Ligand bias of scoring functions in structure-based virtual screening [J].
Jacobsson, M ;
Karlén, A .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2006, 46 (03) :1334-1343
[10]   Considerations in compound database preparation-"hidden" impact on virtual screening results [J].
Knox, AJS ;
Meegan, MJ ;
Carta, G ;
Lloyd, DG .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2005, 45 (06) :1908-1919