Cargando…
Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods
Prioritizing molecules for synthesis is a key role of computational methods within medicinal chemistry. Multiple tools exist for ranking molecules, from the cheap and popular molecular docking methods to more computationally expensive molecular‐dynamics (MD)‐based methods. It is often questioned whe...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9868080/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36240514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cmdc.202200425 |
_version_ | 1784876463191752704 |
---|---|
author | Breznik, Marko Ge, Yunhui Bluck, Joseph P. Briem, Hans Hahn, David F. Christ, Clara D. Mortier, Jérémie Mobley, David L. Meier, Katharina |
author_facet | Breznik, Marko Ge, Yunhui Bluck, Joseph P. Briem, Hans Hahn, David F. Christ, Clara D. Mortier, Jérémie Mobley, David L. Meier, Katharina |
author_sort | Breznik, Marko |
collection | PubMed |
description | Prioritizing molecules for synthesis is a key role of computational methods within medicinal chemistry. Multiple tools exist for ranking molecules, from the cheap and popular molecular docking methods to more computationally expensive molecular‐dynamics (MD)‐based methods. It is often questioned whether the accuracy of the more rigorous methods justifies the higher computational cost and associated calculation time. Here, we compared the performance on ranking the binding of small molecules for seven scoring functions from five docking programs, one end‐point method (MM/GBSA), and two MD‐based free energy methods (PMX, FEP+). We investigated 16 pharmaceutically relevant targets with a total of 423 known binders. The performance of docking methods for ligand ranking was strongly system dependent. We observed that MD‐based methods predominantly outperformed docking algorithms and MM/GBSA calculations. Based on our results, we recommend the application of MD‐based free energy methods for prioritization of molecules for synthesis in lead optimization, whenever feasible. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9868080 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98680802023-04-14 Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods Breznik, Marko Ge, Yunhui Bluck, Joseph P. Briem, Hans Hahn, David F. Christ, Clara D. Mortier, Jérémie Mobley, David L. Meier, Katharina ChemMedChem Research Articles Prioritizing molecules for synthesis is a key role of computational methods within medicinal chemistry. Multiple tools exist for ranking molecules, from the cheap and popular molecular docking methods to more computationally expensive molecular‐dynamics (MD)‐based methods. It is often questioned whether the accuracy of the more rigorous methods justifies the higher computational cost and associated calculation time. Here, we compared the performance on ranking the binding of small molecules for seven scoring functions from five docking programs, one end‐point method (MM/GBSA), and two MD‐based free energy methods (PMX, FEP+). We investigated 16 pharmaceutically relevant targets with a total of 423 known binders. The performance of docking methods for ligand ranking was strongly system dependent. We observed that MD‐based methods predominantly outperformed docking algorithms and MM/GBSA calculations. Based on our results, we recommend the application of MD‐based free energy methods for prioritization of molecules for synthesis in lead optimization, whenever feasible. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-11-29 2023-01-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9868080/ /pubmed/36240514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cmdc.202200425 Text en © 2022 Bayer AG and The Authors. ChemMedChem published by Wiley-VCH GmbH https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Research Articles Breznik, Marko Ge, Yunhui Bluck, Joseph P. Briem, Hans Hahn, David F. Christ, Clara D. Mortier, Jérémie Mobley, David L. Meier, Katharina Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods |
title | Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods |
title_full | Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods |
title_fullStr | Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods |
title_short | Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods |
title_sort | prioritizing small sets of molecules for synthesis through in‐silico tools: a comparison of common ranking methods |
topic | Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9868080/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36240514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cmdc.202200425 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT breznikmarko prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods AT geyunhui prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods AT bluckjosephp prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods AT briemhans prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods AT hahndavidf prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods AT christclarad prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods AT mortierjeremie prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods AT mobleydavidl prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods AT meierkatharina prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods |