↓ Skip to main content

vSDC: a method to improve early recognition in virtual screening when limited experimental resources are available

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cheminformatics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
vSDC: a method to improve early recognition in virtual screening when limited experimental resources are available
Published in
Journal of Cheminformatics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13321-016-0112-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ludovic Chaput, Juan Martinez-Sanz, Eric Quiniou, Pascal Rigolet, Nicolas Saettel, Liliane Mouawad

Abstract

In drug design, one may be confronted to the problem of finding hits for targets for which no small inhibiting molecules are known and only low-throughput experiments are available (like ITC or NMR studies), two common difficulties encountered in a typical academic setting. Using a virtual screening strategy like docking can alleviate some of the problems and save a considerable amount of time by selecting only top-ranking molecules, but only if the method is very efficient, i.e. when a good proportion of actives are found in the 1-10 % best ranked molecules. The use of several programs (in our study, Gold, Surflex, FlexX and Glide were considered) shows a divergence of the results, which presents a difficulty in guiding the experiments. To overcome this divergence and increase the yield of the virtual screening, we created the standard deviation consensus (SDC) and variable SDC (vSDC) methods, consisting of the intersection of molecule sets from several virtual screening programs, based on the standard deviations of their ranking distributions. SDC allowed us to find hits for two new protein targets by testing only 9 and 11 small molecules from a chemical library of circa 15,000 compounds. Furthermore, vSDC, when applied to the 102 proteins of the DUD-E benchmarking database, succeeded in finding more hits than any of the four isolated programs for 13-60 % of the targets. In addition, when only 10 molecules of each of the 102 chemical libraries were considered, vSDC performed better in the number of hits found, with an improvement of 6-24 % over the 10 best-ranked molecules given by the individual docking programs.Graphical abstractIn drug design, for a given target and a given chemical library, the results obtained with different virtual screening programs are divergent. So how to rationally guide the experimental tests, especially when only a few number of experiments can be made? The variable Standard Deviation Consensus (vSDC) method was developed to answer this issue. Left panel the vSDC principle consists of intersecting molecule sets, chosen on the basis of the standard deviations of their ranking distributions, obtained from various virtual screening programs. In this study Glide, Gold, FlexX and Surflex were used and tested on the 102 targets of the DUD-E database. Right panel Comparison of the average percentage of hits found with vSDC and each of the four programs, when only 10 molecules from each of the 102 chemical libraries of the DUD-E database were considered. On average, vSDC was capable of finding 38 % of the findable hits, against 34 % for Glide, 32 % for Gold, 16 % for FlexX and 14 % for Surflex, showing that with vSDC, it was possible to overcome the unpredictability of the virtual screening results and to improve them.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Master 5 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 8 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Computer Science 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 8 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 13 February 2016.
All research outputs
#2,747,422
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cheminformatics
#274
of 834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,983
of 393,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cheminformatics
#4
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 834 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 393,708 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 73% of its contemporaries.