4.5 Article

Consensus scoring for ligand/protein interactions

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR GRAPHICS & MODELLING
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 281-295

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1093-3263(01)00125-5

关键词

docking; scoring function; fitness function; ligand/protein complexes; ligand binding; ligand/protein interaction; consensus scoring; genetic algorithms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several different functions have been put forward for evaluating the energetics of ligand binding to proteins. Those employed in the DOCK, GOLD and FlexX docking programs have been especially widely used, particularly in connection with virtual high-throughput screening (vHTS) projects. Until recently, such evaluation functions were usually considered only in conjunction with the docking programs that relied on them. In such studies, the evaluation function in question actually fills two distinct roles: it serves as the objective function being optimized (fitness function), but is also the scoring function used to compare the candidate docking configurations generated by the program. We have used descriptions available in the open literature to create free-standing scoring functions based on those used in DOCK and GOLD, and have implemented the more recently formulated PMF [J. Med. Chem. 42 (1999) 791] scoring function as well. The performance of these functions was examined individually for each of several data sets for which both crystal structures and affinities are available, as was the performance of the FlexX scoring function. Various ways of combining individual scores into a consensus score (CScore) were also considered. The individual and consensus scores were also used to try to pick out configurations most similar to those found in crystal structures from among a set of candidate configurations produced by FlexX docking runs. We find that the reliability and interpretability of results can be improved by combining results from all four functions into a CScore. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据