Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on an Updated Benchmark: 2. Evaluation Methods and General Results

被引:263
作者
Li, Yan [1 ]
Han, Li [1 ]
Liu, Zhihai [1 ]
Wang, Renxiao [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Acad Sci, Shanghai Inst Organ Chem, State Key Lab Bioorgan & Nat Prod Chem, Shanghai 200032, Peoples R China
[2] Macau Univ Sci & Technol, Macau Inst Appl Res Med & Hlth, State Key Lab Qual Res Chinese Med, Macau, Peoples R China
关键词
PROTEIN-LIGAND INTERACTIONS; BINDING-AFFINITY PREDICTION; OUT CROSS-VALIDATION; MOLECULAR-DOCKING; FLEXIBLE DOCKING; PDBBIND DATABASE; DRUG DISCOVERY; DATA SETS; PARTITION-COEFFICIENTS; FUNCTIONS IMPROVES;
D O I
10.1021/ci500081m
中图分类号
R914 [药物化学];
学科分类号
100701 ;
摘要
Our comparative assessment of scoring functions (CASF) benchmark is created to provide an objective evaluation of current scoring functions. The key idea of CASF is to compare the general performance of scoring functions on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes. In order to avoid testing scoring functions in the context of molecular docking, the scoring process is separated from the docking (or sampling) process by using ensembles of ligand binding poses that are generated in prior. Here, we describe the technical methods and evaluation results of the latest CASF-2013 study. The PDBbind core set (version 2013) was employed as the primary test set in this study, which consists of 195 protein-ligand complexes with high-quality three-dimensional structures and reliable binding constants. A panel of 20 scoring functions, most of which are implemented in main-stream commercial software, were evaluated in terms of "scoring power" (binding affinity prediction), "ranking power" (relative ranking prediction), "docking power" (binding pose prediction), and "screening power" (discrimination of true binders from random molecules). Our results reveal that the performance of these scoring functions is generally more promising in the docking/screening power tests than in the scoring/ranking power tests. Top-ranked scoring functions in the scoring power test, such as X-Score(HM), ChemScore@SYBYL, ChemPLP@GOLD, and PLP@DS, are also top-ranked in the ranking power test. Top-ranked scoring functions in the docking power test, such as ChemPLP@GOLD, Chemscore@GOLD, GlidScore-SP, LigScore@DS, and PLP@DS, are also top-ranked in the screening power test. Our results obtained on the entire test set and its subsets suggest that the real challenge in protein-ligand binding affinity prediction lies in polar interactions and associated desolvation effect. Nonadditive features observed among high-affinity protein-ligand complexes also need attention.
引用
收藏
页码:1717 / 1736
页数:20
相关论文
共 94 条
  • [11] Molecular recognition and docking algorithms
    Brooijmans, N
    Kuntz, ID
    [J]. ANNUAL REVIEW OF BIOPHYSICS AND BIOMOLECULAR STRUCTURE, 2003, 32 : 335 - 373
  • [12] CHARMM - A PROGRAM FOR MACROMOLECULAR ENERGY, MINIMIZATION, AND DYNAMICS CALCULATIONS
    BROOKS, BR
    BRUCCOLERI, RE
    OLAFSON, BD
    STATES, DJ
    SWAMINATHAN, S
    KARPLUS, M
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY, 1983, 4 (02) : 187 - 217
  • [13] Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking
    Bursulaya, BD
    Totrov, M
    Abagyan, R
    Brooks, CL
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-AIDED MOLECULAR DESIGN, 2003, 17 (11) : 755 - 763
  • [14] Evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors
    Chen, HM
    Lyne, PD
    Giordanetto, F
    Lovell, T
    Li, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2006, 46 (01) : 401 - 415
  • [15] Computation of octanol-water partition coefficients by guiding an additive model with knowledge
    Cheng, Tiejun
    Zhao, Yuan
    Li, Xun
    Lin, Fu
    Xu, Yong
    Zhang, Xinglong
    Li, Yan
    Wang, Renxiao
    Lai, Luhua
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2007, 47 (06) : 2140 - 2148
  • [16] Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on a Diverse Test Set
    Cheng, Tiejun
    Li, Xun
    Li, Yan
    Liu, Zhihai
    Wang, Renxiao
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2009, 49 (04) : 1079 - 1093
  • [17] Cross J. B., 2009, J MED CHEM, V49, P1455
  • [18] Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools
    Cummings, MD
    DesJarlais, RL
    Gibbs, AC
    Mohan, V
    Jaeger, EP
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 2005, 48 (04) : 962 - 976
  • [19] CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2011-2012: Evaluation of Results from Docking and Relative Ranking of Blinded Congeneric Series
    Damm-Ganamet, Kelly L.
    Smith, Richard D.
    Dunbar, James B., Jr.
    Stuckey, Jeanne A.
    Carlson, Heather A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2013, 53 (08) : 1853 - 1870
  • [20] Binding Affinity Prediction with Property-Encoded Shape Distribution Signatures
    Das, Sourav
    Krein, Michael P.
    Breneman, Curt M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2010, 50 (02) : 298 - 308