Multiple protein structures and multiple ligands: effects on the apparent goodness of virtual screening results
As an extension to a previous published study (McGaughey et al., J Chem Inf Model 47:1504–1519, 2007) comparing 2D and 3D similarity methods to docking, we apply a subset of those virtual screening methods (TOPOSIM, SQW, ROCS-color, and Glide) to a set of protein/ligand pairs where the protein is th...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of computer-aided molecular design 2008-03, Vol.22 (3-4), p.257-265 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 265 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3-4 |
container_start_page | 257 |
container_title | Journal of computer-aided molecular design |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Sheridan, Robert P. McGaughey, Georgia B. Cornell, Wendy D. |
description | As an extension to a previous published study (McGaughey et al., J Chem Inf Model 47:1504–1519, 2007) comparing 2D and 3D similarity methods to docking, we apply a subset of those virtual screening methods (TOPOSIM, SQW, ROCS-color, and Glide) to a set of protein/ligand pairs where the protein is the target for docking and the cocrystallized ligand is the target for the similarity methods. Each protein is represented by a maximum of five crystal structures. We search a diverse subset of the MDDR as well as a diverse small subset of the MCIDB, Merck’s proprietary database. It is seen that the relative effectiveness of virtual screening methods, as measured by the enrichment factor, is highly dependent on the particular crystal structure or ligand, and on the database being searched. 2D similarity methods appear very good for the MDDR, but poor for the MCIDB. However, ROCS-color (a 3D similarity method) does well for both databases. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10822-008-9168-9 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70414829</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70414829</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-88e6aa1344911ef1a67572f919504cead84de182790f870dfe97b5737a8e26433</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1rFTEYhYNY7LX1B7gpwUV3o_mafLiTYlWodNNCdyGdeXOdMjczzZsR-u-b4V4pCOImIZxznnA4hLzn7CNnzHxCzqwQDWO2cVzX4xXZ8NbIRrmWvyYb5gRrdKvujslbxAdWM06zN-SYW2Fk27oNmX4uYxnmEeicpwJDoljy0pUlA9KQerr7o4_Dtr7xM4UYoStIp0TLL6BhnkOGVOh2mvoEWIVIfw-5LGGk2GWANKQtrbxKwlNyFMOI8O5wn5Dby683F9-bq-tvPy6-XDWdYqw01oIOgUulHOcQedCmNSI67lqmOgi9VT2sLRyL1rA-gjP3tbkJFoRWUp6Q8z231npcAIvfDdjBOIYE04LeMMWVFe6_Rqmlca3g1fjhL-PDtORUS3jBtdRGy5XG96YuT4gZop_zsAv5yXPm1838fjNfN_PrZn7NnB3Ay_0O-pfEYaRqEHsDViltIb_8_G_qM90PorA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>216367639</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Multiple protein structures and multiple ligands: effects on the apparent goodness of virtual screening results</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Sheridan, Robert P. ; McGaughey, Georgia B. ; Cornell, Wendy D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sheridan, Robert P. ; McGaughey, Georgia B. ; Cornell, Wendy D.</creatorcontrib><description>As an extension to a previous published study (McGaughey et al., J Chem Inf Model 47:1504–1519, 2007) comparing 2D and 3D similarity methods to docking, we apply a subset of those virtual screening methods (TOPOSIM, SQW, ROCS-color, and Glide) to a set of protein/ligand pairs where the protein is the target for docking and the cocrystallized ligand is the target for the similarity methods. Each protein is represented by a maximum of five crystal structures. We search a diverse subset of the MDDR as well as a diverse small subset of the MCIDB, Merck’s proprietary database. It is seen that the relative effectiveness of virtual screening methods, as measured by the enrichment factor, is highly dependent on the particular crystal structure or ligand, and on the database being searched. 2D similarity methods appear very good for the MDDR, but poor for the MCIDB. However, ROCS-color (a 3D similarity method) does well for both databases.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0920-654X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-4951</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10822-008-9168-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18273559</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Animal Anatomy ; Binding Sites - physiology ; Biotechnology ; Chemistry ; Chemistry and Materials Science ; Computer Applications in Chemistry ; Computer-Aided Design ; Crystal structure ; Drug Delivery Systems ; Drug Design ; Histology ; Ligands ; Molecular biology ; Morphology ; Pharmacology ; Physical Chemistry ; Protein Binding - physiology ; Proteins ; Proteins - chemistry ; Proteins - metabolism ; Retrospective Studies</subject><ispartof>Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2008-03, Vol.22 (3-4), p.257-265</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2008</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-88e6aa1344911ef1a67572f919504cead84de182790f870dfe97b5737a8e26433</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-88e6aa1344911ef1a67572f919504cead84de182790f870dfe97b5737a8e26433</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10822-008-9168-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10822-008-9168-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18273559$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sheridan, Robert P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGaughey, Georgia B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cornell, Wendy D.</creatorcontrib><title>Multiple protein structures and multiple ligands: effects on the apparent goodness of virtual screening results</title><title>Journal of computer-aided molecular design</title><addtitle>J Comput Aided Mol Des</addtitle><addtitle>J Comput Aided Mol Des</addtitle><description>As an extension to a previous published study (McGaughey et al., J Chem Inf Model 47:1504–1519, 2007) comparing 2D and 3D similarity methods to docking, we apply a subset of those virtual screening methods (TOPOSIM, SQW, ROCS-color, and Glide) to a set of protein/ligand pairs where the protein is the target for docking and the cocrystallized ligand is the target for the similarity methods. Each protein is represented by a maximum of five crystal structures. We search a diverse subset of the MDDR as well as a diverse small subset of the MCIDB, Merck’s proprietary database. It is seen that the relative effectiveness of virtual screening methods, as measured by the enrichment factor, is highly dependent on the particular crystal structure or ligand, and on the database being searched. 2D similarity methods appear very good for the MDDR, but poor for the MCIDB. However, ROCS-color (a 3D similarity method) does well for both databases.</description><subject>Animal Anatomy</subject><subject>Binding Sites - physiology</subject><subject>Biotechnology</subject><subject>Chemistry</subject><subject>Chemistry and Materials Science</subject><subject>Computer Applications in Chemistry</subject><subject>Computer-Aided Design</subject><subject>Crystal structure</subject><subject>Drug Delivery Systems</subject><subject>Drug Design</subject><subject>Histology</subject><subject>Ligands</subject><subject>Molecular biology</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>Pharmacology</subject><subject>Physical Chemistry</subject><subject>Protein Binding - physiology</subject><subject>Proteins</subject><subject>Proteins - chemistry</subject><subject>Proteins - metabolism</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><issn>0920-654X</issn><issn>1573-4951</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1rFTEYhYNY7LX1B7gpwUV3o_mafLiTYlWodNNCdyGdeXOdMjczzZsR-u-b4V4pCOImIZxznnA4hLzn7CNnzHxCzqwQDWO2cVzX4xXZ8NbIRrmWvyYb5gRrdKvujslbxAdWM06zN-SYW2Fk27oNmX4uYxnmEeicpwJDoljy0pUlA9KQerr7o4_Dtr7xM4UYoStIp0TLL6BhnkOGVOh2mvoEWIVIfw-5LGGk2GWANKQtrbxKwlNyFMOI8O5wn5Dby683F9-bq-tvPy6-XDWdYqw01oIOgUulHOcQedCmNSI67lqmOgi9VT2sLRyL1rA-gjP3tbkJFoRWUp6Q8z231npcAIvfDdjBOIYE04LeMMWVFe6_Rqmlca3g1fjhL-PDtORUS3jBtdRGy5XG96YuT4gZop_zsAv5yXPm1838fjNfN_PrZn7NnB3Ay_0O-pfEYaRqEHsDViltIb_8_G_qM90PorA</recordid><startdate>20080301</startdate><enddate>20080301</enddate><creator>Sheridan, Robert P.</creator><creator>McGaughey, Georgia B.</creator><creator>Cornell, Wendy D.</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AL</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M0N</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080301</creationdate><title>Multiple protein structures and multiple ligands: effects on the apparent goodness of virtual screening results</title><author>Sheridan, Robert P. ; McGaughey, Georgia B. ; Cornell, Wendy D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-88e6aa1344911ef1a67572f919504cead84de182790f870dfe97b5737a8e26433</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Animal Anatomy</topic><topic>Binding Sites - physiology</topic><topic>Biotechnology</topic><topic>Chemistry</topic><topic>Chemistry and Materials Science</topic><topic>Computer Applications in Chemistry</topic><topic>Computer-Aided Design</topic><topic>Crystal structure</topic><topic>Drug Delivery Systems</topic><topic>Drug Design</topic><topic>Histology</topic><topic>Ligands</topic><topic>Molecular biology</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>Pharmacology</topic><topic>Physical Chemistry</topic><topic>Protein Binding - physiology</topic><topic>Proteins</topic><topic>Proteins - chemistry</topic><topic>Proteins - metabolism</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sheridan, Robert P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGaughey, Georgia B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cornell, Wendy D.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Computing Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Computing Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of computer-aided molecular design</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sheridan, Robert P.</au><au>McGaughey, Georgia B.</au><au>Cornell, Wendy D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Multiple protein structures and multiple ligands: effects on the apparent goodness of virtual screening results</atitle><jtitle>Journal of computer-aided molecular design</jtitle><stitle>J Comput Aided Mol Des</stitle><addtitle>J Comput Aided Mol Des</addtitle><date>2008-03-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>3-4</issue><spage>257</spage><epage>265</epage><pages>257-265</pages><issn>0920-654X</issn><eissn>1573-4951</eissn><abstract>As an extension to a previous published study (McGaughey et al., J Chem Inf Model 47:1504–1519, 2007) comparing 2D and 3D similarity methods to docking, we apply a subset of those virtual screening methods (TOPOSIM, SQW, ROCS-color, and Glide) to a set of protein/ligand pairs where the protein is the target for docking and the cocrystallized ligand is the target for the similarity methods. Each protein is represented by a maximum of five crystal structures. We search a diverse subset of the MDDR as well as a diverse small subset of the MCIDB, Merck’s proprietary database. It is seen that the relative effectiveness of virtual screening methods, as measured by the enrichment factor, is highly dependent on the particular crystal structure or ligand, and on the database being searched. 2D similarity methods appear very good for the MDDR, but poor for the MCIDB. However, ROCS-color (a 3D similarity method) does well for both databases.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><pmid>18273559</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10822-008-9168-9</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0920-654X |
ispartof | Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2008-03, Vol.22 (3-4), p.257-265 |
issn | 0920-654X 1573-4951 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70414829 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Animal Anatomy Binding Sites - physiology Biotechnology Chemistry Chemistry and Materials Science Computer Applications in Chemistry Computer-Aided Design Crystal structure Drug Delivery Systems Drug Design Histology Ligands Molecular biology Morphology Pharmacology Physical Chemistry Protein Binding - physiology Proteins Proteins - chemistry Proteins - metabolism Retrospective Studies |
title | Multiple protein structures and multiple ligands: effects on the apparent goodness of virtual screening results |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T16%3A24%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Multiple%20protein%20structures%20and%20multiple%20ligands:%20effects%20on%20the%20apparent%20goodness%20of%20virtual%20screening%20results&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20computer-aided%20molecular%20design&rft.au=Sheridan,%20Robert%20P.&rft.date=2008-03-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=3-4&rft.spage=257&rft.epage=265&rft.pages=257-265&rft.issn=0920-654X&rft.eissn=1573-4951&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10822-008-9168-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70414829%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=216367639&rft_id=info:pmid/18273559&rfr_iscdi=true |