Benchmarking Sets for Molecular Docking

Overview

Journal J Med Chem

Publisher American Chemical Society

Specialty Chemistry

Date 2006 Dec 13

PMID 17154509

Citations 434

Authors

Niu Huang

Brian K Shoichet

John J Irwin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Ligand enrichment among top-ranking hits is a key metric of molecular docking. To avoid bias, decoys should resemble ligands physically, so that enrichment is not simply a separation of gross features, yet be chemically distinct from them, so that they are unlikely to be binders. We have assembled a directory of useful decoys (DUD), with 2950 ligands for 40 different targets. Every ligand has 36 decoy molecules that are physically similar but topologically distinct, leading to a database of 98,266 compounds. For most targets, enrichment was at least half a log better with uncorrected databases such as the MDDR than with DUD, evidence of bias in the former. These calculations also allowed 40x40 cross-docking, where the enrichments of each ligand set could be compared for all 40 targets, enabling a specificity metric for the docking screens. DUD is freely available online as a benchmarking set for docking at http://blaster.docking.org/dud/.

Citing Articles

A Practical Guide to Computational Tools for Engineering Biocatalytic Properties.

Vega A, Planas A, Biarnes X Int J Mol Sci. 2025; 26(3).

PMID: 39940748 PMC: 11817184. DOI: 10.3390/ijms26030980.

Advances and Challenges in Antiviral Development for Respiratory Viruses.

De Jesus-Gonzalez L, Leon-Juarez M, Lira-Hernandez F, Rivas-Santiago B, Velazquez-Cervantes M, Mendez-Delgado I Pathogens. 2025; 14(1).

PMID: 39860981 PMC: 11768830. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens14010020.

Combining crystallographic and binding affinity data towards a novel dataset of small molecule overlays.

Honig S, Gutermuth T, Ehrt C, Lemmen C, Rarey M J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2024; 39(1):2.

PMID: 39630291 PMC: 11618164. DOI: 10.1007/s10822-024-00581-1.

HDBind: encoding of molecular structure with hyperdimensional binary representations.

Jones D, Zhang X, Bennion B, Pinge S, Xu W, Kang J Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):29025.

PMID: 39578580 PMC: 11584749. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-80009-w.

Natural Language Processing Methods for the Study of Protein-Ligand Interactions.

Michels J, Bandarupalli R, Ahangar Akbari A, Le T, Xiao H, Li J ArXiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39483353 PMC: 11527106.

References

Voigt J, Bienfait B, Wang S, Nicklaus M . Comparison of the NCI open database with seven large chemical structural databases. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2001; 41(3):702-12. DOI: 10.1021/ci000150t. View

Hennequin L, Stokes E, Thomas A, Johnstone C, Ple P, Ogilvie D . Novel 4-anilinoquinazolines with C-7 basic side chains: design and structure activity relationship of a series of potent, orally active, VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. J Med Chem. 2002; 45(6):1300-12. DOI: 10.1021/jm011022e. View

Pargellis C, Tong L, Churchill L, Cirillo P, Gilmore T, Graham A . Inhibition of p38 MAP kinase by utilizing a novel allosteric binding site. Nat Struct Biol. 2002; 9(4):268-72. DOI: 10.1038/nsb770. View

Powers R, Morandi F, Shoichet B . Structure-based discovery of a novel, noncovalent inhibitor of AmpC beta-lactamase. Structure. 2002; 10(7):1013-23. DOI: 10.1016/s0969-2126(02)00799-2. View

Gruneberg S, Stubbs M, Klebe G . Successful virtual screening for novel inhibitors of human carbonic anhydrase: strategy and experimental confirmation. J Med Chem. 2002; 45(17):3588-602. DOI: 10.1021/jm011112j. View

Gohlke H, Klebe G . Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2002; 41(15):2644-76. DOI: 10.1002/1521-3773(20020802)41:15<2644::AID-ANIE2644>3.0.CO;2-O. View

Wei B, Baase W, Weaver L, Matthews B, Shoichet B . A model binding site for testing scoring functions in molecular docking. J Mol Biol. 2002; 322(2):339-55. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-2836(02)00777-5. View

Pan Y, Huang N, Cho S, MacKerell Jr A . Consideration of molecular weight during compound selection in virtual target-based database screening. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2003; 43(1):267-72. DOI: 10.1021/ci020055f. View

Jain A . Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J Med Chem. 2003; 46(4):499-511. DOI: 10.1021/jm020406h. View

10.

Schulz-Gasch T, Stahl M . Binding site characteristics in structure-based virtual screening: evaluation of current docking tools. J Mol Model. 2003; 9(1):47-57. DOI: 10.1007/s00894-002-0112-y. View

11.

Eswar N, John B, Mirkovic N, Fiser A, Ilyin V, Pieper U . Tools for comparative protein structure modeling and analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003; 31(13):3375-80. PMC: 168950. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkg543. View

12.

McGovern S, Shoichet B . Information decay in molecular docking screens against holo, apo, and modeled conformations of enzymes. J Med Chem. 2003; 46(14):2895-907. DOI: 10.1021/jm0300330. View

13.

Schapira M, Abagyan R, Totrov M . Nuclear hormone receptor targeted virtual screening. J Med Chem. 2003; 46(14):3045-59. DOI: 10.1021/jm0300173. View

14.

Sotriffer C, Dramburg I . "In situ cross-docking" to simultaneously address multiple targets. J Med Chem. 2005; 48(9):3122-5. DOI: 10.1021/jm050075j. View

15.

Brooijmans N, Kuntz I . Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct. 2003; 32:335-73. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.biophys.32.110601.142532. View

16.

Diller D, Li R . Kinases, homology models, and high throughput docking. J Med Chem. 2003; 46(22):4638-47. DOI: 10.1021/jm020503a. View

17.

Jacobsson M, Liden P, Stjernschantz E, Bostrom H, Norinder U . Improving structure-based virtual screening by multivariate analysis of scoring data. J Med Chem. 2003; 46(26):5781-9. DOI: 10.1021/jm030896t. View

18.

Cavasotto C, Abagyan R . Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases. J Mol Biol. 2004; 337(1):209-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2004.01.003. View

19.

Halgren T, Murphy R, Friesner R, Beard H, Frye L, Pollard W . Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J Med Chem. 2004; 47(7):1750-9. DOI: 10.1021/jm030644s. View

20.

Jacobson M, Pincus D, Rapp C, Day T, Honig B, Shaw D . A hierarchical approach to all-atom protein loop prediction. Proteins. 2004; 55(2):351-67. DOI: 10.1002/prot.10613. View