↓ Skip to main content

Calculating an optimal box size for ligand docking and virtual screening against experimental and predicted binding pockets

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cheminformatics, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
166 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
313 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Calculating an optimal box size for ligand docking and virtual screening against experimental and predicted binding pockets
Published in
Journal of Cheminformatics, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13321-015-0067-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei P. Feinstein, Michal Brylinski

Abstract

Computational approaches have emerged as an instrumental methodology in modern research. For example, virtual screening by molecular docking is routinely used in computer-aided drug discovery. One of the critical parameters for ligand docking is the size of a search space used to identify low-energy binding poses of drug candidates. Currently available docking packages often come with a default protocol for calculating the box size, however, many of these procedures have not been systematically evaluated. In this study, we investigate how the docking accuracy of AutoDock Vina is affected by the selection of a search space. We propose a new procedure for calculating the optimal docking box size that maximizes the accuracy of binding pose prediction against a non-redundant and representative dataset of 3,659 protein-ligand complexes selected from the Protein Data Bank. Subsequently, we use the Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced to demonstrate that the optimized docking box size also yields an improved ranking in virtual screening. Binding pockets in both datasets are derived from the experimental complex structures and, additionally, predicted by eFindSite. A systematic analysis of ligand binding poses generated by AutoDock Vina shows that the highest accuracy is achieved when the dimensions of the search space are 2.9 times larger than the radius of gyration of a docking compound. Subsequent virtual screening benchmarks demonstrate that this optimized docking box size also improves compound ranking. For instance, using predicted ligand binding sites, the average enrichment factor calculated for the top 1 % (10 %) of the screening library is 8.20 (3.28) for the optimized protocol, compared to 7.67 (3.19) for the default procedure. Depending on the evaluation metric, the optimal docking box size gives better ranking in virtual screening for about two-thirds of target proteins. This fully automated procedure can be used to optimize docking protocols in order to improve the ranking accuracy in production virtual screening simulations. Importantly, the optimized search space systematically yields better results than the default method not only for experimental pockets, but also for those predicted from protein structures. A script for calculating the optimal docking box size is freely available at www.brylinski.org/content/docking-box-size. Graphical AbstractWe developed a procedure to optimize the box size in molecular docking calculations. Left panel shows the predicted binding pose of NADP (green sticks) compared to the experimental complex structure of human aldose reductase (blue sticks) using a default protocol. Right panel shows the docking accuracy using an optimized box size.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 313 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 308 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 17%
Student > Master 50 16%
Student > Bachelor 43 14%
Researcher 36 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 4%
Other 47 15%
Unknown 70 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 55 18%
Chemistry 50 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 37 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 8%
Computer Science 16 5%
Other 45 14%
Unknown 86 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 September 2023.
All research outputs
#14,169,543
of 24,397,600 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cheminformatics
#671
of 896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,522
of 268,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cheminformatics
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,600 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 268,988 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.