Cargando…

CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2011–2012: Evaluation of Results from Docking and Relative Ranking of Blinded Congeneric Series

[Image: see text] The Community Structure–Activity Resource (CSAR) recently held its first blinded exercise based on data provided by Abbott, Vertex, and colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. A total of 20 research groups submitted results for the benchmark exercise where the goal was...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Damm-Ganamet, Kelly L., Smith, Richard D., Dunbar, James B., Stuckey, Jeanne A., Carlson, Heather A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2013
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3753884/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23548044
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ci400025f
_version_ 1782281888631619584
author Damm-Ganamet, Kelly L.
Smith, Richard D.
Dunbar, James B.
Stuckey, Jeanne A.
Carlson, Heather A.
author_facet Damm-Ganamet, Kelly L.
Smith, Richard D.
Dunbar, James B.
Stuckey, Jeanne A.
Carlson, Heather A.
author_sort Damm-Ganamet, Kelly L.
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] The Community Structure–Activity Resource (CSAR) recently held its first blinded exercise based on data provided by Abbott, Vertex, and colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. A total of 20 research groups submitted results for the benchmark exercise where the goal was to compare different improvements for pose prediction, enrichment, and relative ranking of congeneric series of compounds. The exercise was built around blinded high-quality experimental data from four protein targets: LpxC, Urokinase, Chk1, and Erk2. Pose prediction proved to be the most straightforward task, and most methods were able to successfully reproduce binding poses when the crystal structure employed was co-crystallized with a ligand from the same chemical series. Multiple evaluation metrics were examined, and we found that RMSD and native contact metrics together provide a robust evaluation of the predicted poses. It was notable that most scoring functions underpredicted contacts between the hetero atoms (i.e., N, O, S, etc.) of the protein and ligand. Relative ranking was found to be the most difficult area for the methods, but many of the scoring functions were able to properly identify Urokinase actives from the inactives in the series. Lastly, we found that minimizing the protein and correcting histidine tautomeric states positively trended with low RMSD for pose prediction but minimizing the ligand negatively trended. Pregenerated ligand conformations performed better than those that were generated on the fly. Optimizing docking parameters and pretraining with the native ligand had a positive effect on the docking performance as did using restraints, substructure fitting, and shape fitting. Lastly, for both sampling and ranking scoring functions, the use of the empirical scoring function appeared to trend positively with the RMSD. Here, by combining the results of many methods, we hope to provide a statistically relevant evaluation and elucidate specific shortcomings of docking methodology for the community.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3753884
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37538842013-08-28 CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2011–2012: Evaluation of Results from Docking and Relative Ranking of Blinded Congeneric Series Damm-Ganamet, Kelly L. Smith, Richard D. Dunbar, James B. Stuckey, Jeanne A. Carlson, Heather A. J Chem Inf Model [Image: see text] The Community Structure–Activity Resource (CSAR) recently held its first blinded exercise based on data provided by Abbott, Vertex, and colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. A total of 20 research groups submitted results for the benchmark exercise where the goal was to compare different improvements for pose prediction, enrichment, and relative ranking of congeneric series of compounds. The exercise was built around blinded high-quality experimental data from four protein targets: LpxC, Urokinase, Chk1, and Erk2. Pose prediction proved to be the most straightforward task, and most methods were able to successfully reproduce binding poses when the crystal structure employed was co-crystallized with a ligand from the same chemical series. Multiple evaluation metrics were examined, and we found that RMSD and native contact metrics together provide a robust evaluation of the predicted poses. It was notable that most scoring functions underpredicted contacts between the hetero atoms (i.e., N, O, S, etc.) of the protein and ligand. Relative ranking was found to be the most difficult area for the methods, but many of the scoring functions were able to properly identify Urokinase actives from the inactives in the series. Lastly, we found that minimizing the protein and correcting histidine tautomeric states positively trended with low RMSD for pose prediction but minimizing the ligand negatively trended. Pregenerated ligand conformations performed better than those that were generated on the fly. Optimizing docking parameters and pretraining with the native ligand had a positive effect on the docking performance as did using restraints, substructure fitting, and shape fitting. Lastly, for both sampling and ranking scoring functions, the use of the empirical scoring function appeared to trend positively with the RMSD. Here, by combining the results of many methods, we hope to provide a statistically relevant evaluation and elucidate specific shortcomings of docking methodology for the community. American Chemical Society 2013-04-02 2013-08-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3753884/ /pubmed/23548044 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ci400025f Text en Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society Terms of Use (http://pubs.acs.org/page/policy/authorchoice_termsofuse.html)
spellingShingle Damm-Ganamet, Kelly L.
Smith, Richard D.
Dunbar, James B.
Stuckey, Jeanne A.
Carlson, Heather A.
CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2011–2012: Evaluation of Results from Docking and Relative Ranking of Blinded Congeneric Series
title CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2011–2012: Evaluation of Results from Docking and Relative Ranking of Blinded Congeneric Series
title_full CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2011–2012: Evaluation of Results from Docking and Relative Ranking of Blinded Congeneric Series
title_fullStr CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2011–2012: Evaluation of Results from Docking and Relative Ranking of Blinded Congeneric Series
title_full_unstemmed CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2011–2012: Evaluation of Results from Docking and Relative Ranking of Blinded Congeneric Series
title_short CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2011–2012: Evaluation of Results from Docking and Relative Ranking of Blinded Congeneric Series
title_sort csar benchmark exercise 2011–2012: evaluation of results from docking and relative ranking of blinded congeneric series
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3753884/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23548044
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ci400025f
work_keys_str_mv AT dammganametkellyl csarbenchmarkexercise20112012evaluationofresultsfromdockingandrelativerankingofblindedcongenericseries
AT smithrichardd csarbenchmarkexercise20112012evaluationofresultsfromdockingandrelativerankingofblindedcongenericseries
AT dunbarjamesb csarbenchmarkexercise20112012evaluationofresultsfromdockingandrelativerankingofblindedcongenericseries
AT stuckeyjeannea csarbenchmarkexercise20112012evaluationofresultsfromdockingandrelativerankingofblindedcongenericseries
AT carlsonheathera csarbenchmarkexercise20112012evaluationofresultsfromdockingandrelativerankingofblindedcongenericseries