↓ Skip to main content

Applying DEKOIS 2.0 in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of preparation procedures and score normalization

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Applying DEKOIS 2.0 in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of preparation procedures and score normalization
Published in
Journal of Cheminformatics, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13321-015-0074-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tamer M Ibrahim, Matthias R Bauer, Frank M Boeckler

Abstract

Structure-based virtual screening techniques can help to identify new lead structures and complement other screening approaches in drug discovery. Prior to docking, the data (protein crystal structures and ligands) should be prepared with great attention to molecular and chemical details. Using a subset of 18 diverse targets from the recently introduced DEKOIS 2.0 benchmark set library, we found differences in the virtual screening performance of two popular docking tools (GOLD and Glide) when employing two different commercial packages (e.g. MOE and Maestro) for preparing input data. We systematically investigated the possible factors that can be responsible for the found differences in selected sets. For the Angiotensin-I-converting enzyme dataset, preparation of the bioactive molecules clearly exerted the highest influence on VS performance compared to preparation of the decoys or the target structure. The major contributing factors were different protonation states, molecular flexibility, and differences in the input conformation (particularly for cyclic moieties) of bioactives. In addition, score normalization strategies eliminated the biased docking scores shown by GOLD (ChemPLP) for the larger bioactives and produced a better performance. Generalizing these normalization strategies on the 18 DEKOIS 2.0 sets, improved the performances for the majority of GOLD (ChemPLP) docking, while it showed detrimental performances for the majority of Glide (SP) docking. In conclusion, we exemplify herein possible issues particularly during the preparation stage of molecular data and demonstrate to which extent these issues can cause perturbations in the virtual screening performance. We provide insights into what problems can occur and should be avoided, when generating benchmarks to characterize the virtual screening performance. Particularly, careful selection of an appropriate molecular preparation setup for the bioactive set and the use of score normalization for docking with GOLD (ChemPLP) appear to have a great importance for the screening performance. For virtual screening campaigns, we recommend to invest time and effort into including alternative preparation workflows into the generation of the master library, even at the cost of including multiple representations of each molecule. Graphical AbstractUsing DEKOIS 2.0 benchmark sets in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of molecular preparation and score normalization.

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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 61 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 23%
Student > Master 10 16%
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Lecturer 4 6%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 16 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 14%
Computer Science 8 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 15 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 May 2015.
All research outputs
#18,411,569
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cheminformatics
#799
of 833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,789
of 266,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cheminformatics
#19
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 266,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.