↓ Skip to main content

Comparative assessment of strategies to identify similar ligand-binding pockets in proteins

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparative assessment of strategies to identify similar ligand-binding pockets in proteins
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2109-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rajiv Gandhi Govindaraj, Michal Brylinski

Abstract

Detecting similar ligand-binding sites in globally unrelated proteins has a wide range of applications in modern drug discovery, including drug repurposing, the prediction of side effects, and drug-target interactions. Although a number of techniques to compare binding pockets have been developed, this problem still poses significant challenges. We evaluate the performance of three algorithms to calculate similarities between ligand-binding sites, APoc, SiteEngine, and G-LoSA. Our assessment considers not only the capabilities to identify similar pockets and to construct accurate local alignments, but also the dependence of these alignments on the sequence order. We point out certain drawbacks of previously compiled datasets, such as the inclusion of structurally similar proteins, leading to an overestimated performance. To address these issues, a rigorous procedure to prepare unbiased, high-quality benchmarking sets is proposed. Further, we conduct a comparative assessment of techniques directly aligning binding pockets to indirect strategies employing structure-based virtual screening with AutoDock Vina and rDock. Thorough benchmarks reveal that G-LoSA offers a fairly robust overall performance, whereas the accuracy of APoc and SiteEngine is satisfactory only against easy datasets. Moreover, combining various algorithms into a meta-predictor improves the performance of existing methods to detect similar binding sites in unrelated proteins by 5-10%. All data reported in this paper are freely available at https://osf.io/6ngbs/ .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 21%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 20 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 22%
Chemistry 10 12%
Computer Science 9 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 22 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2022.
All research outputs
#4,194,506
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,605
of 7,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,601
of 333,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#30
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,139 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.