ACS Omega · 2022 · 31 citations · 67 references
PharmacyBioinformaticsMedicinal ChemistryComputational ChemistryDrug DiscoveryStructural BiologyChemical Space ExplorationComputational Drug DiscoveryLigand BindingMolecular DockingProtein-ligand DockingVirtual ScreeningComputational EfficiencyComputational Efficiency AnalysisDecoy SetsDocking Decoy GenerationEnrichmentHigh-throughput Virtual ScreeningScreening Algorithm DevelopmentSuccess Rate Analysis
In recent years, large-scale structure-based virtual screening has attracted increasing levels of interest for identification of novel compounds corresponding to potential drug targets. It is critical to understand the strengths and weaknesses of docking algorithms to increase the success rate in practical applications. Here, we systematically investigated the docking successes and failures of two representative docking programs: UCSF DOCK 3.7 and AutoDock Vina. DOCK 3.7 performed better in early enrichment on the Directory of Useful Decoys: Enhanced (DUD-E) data set, although both docking methods were roughly comparable in overall enrichment performance. DOCK 3.7 also showed superior computational efficiency. Intriguingly, the Vina scoring function showed a bias toward compounds with higher molecular weights. Both the tested docking approaches yielded incorrectly predicted ligand binding poses caused by the limitations of torsion sampling. Based on a careful analysis of docking results from six representative cases, we propose the reasons underlying docking failures; furthermore, we provide a few solutions, representing practical guidance for large-scale virtual screening campaigns and future docking algorithm development.
67
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
John Jumper, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green et al. · Nature · 2021 · 45.2K citations · Full text
Helen M. Berman · Nucleic Acids Research · 2000 · 39.8K citations
Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment
John D. Hunter · Computing in Science & Engineering · 2007 · 39.6K citations