4.4 Article

Assessment of programs for ligand binding affinity prediction

Journal

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 29, Issue 8, Pages 1316-1331

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jcc.20893

Keywords

cross docking; binding free energy; AutoDock; X-Score; FlexX; BLEEP; rigid-receptor docking; unfolded receptor decoy; randomized ligand decoy

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR12255, P41 RR012255-118304, P41 RR012255] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM037408, R01 GM048835] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The prediction of the binding free energy between a ligand and a protein is an important component in the virtual screening and lead optimization of ligands for drug discovery. To determine the quality of current binding free energy estimation programs, we examined FlexX, X-Score, AutoDock, and BLEEP for their performance in binding free energy prediction in various situations including cocrystallized complex structures, cross docking of ligands to their non-cocrystallized receptors, docking of thermally unfolded receptor decoys to their ligands, and complex structures with randomized ligand decoys. In no case was there a satisfactory correlation between the experimental and estimated binding free energies over all the datasets tested. Meanwhile, a strong correlation between ligand molecular weight-binding affinity correlation and experimental predicted binding affinity correlation was found. Sometimes the programs also correctly ranked ligands' binding affinities even though native interactions between the ligands and their receptors were essentially lost because of receptor deformation or ligand randomization, and the programs could not decisively discriminate randomized ligand decoys from their native ligands; this suggested that the tested programs miss important components for the accurate capture of specific ligand binding interactions. (C) 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available