Dataset Information

Pharmacophore-based virtual screening versus docking-based virtual screening: a benchmark comparison against eight targets.

ABSTRACT: AIM: This study was conducted to compare the efficiencies of two virtual screening approaches, pharmacophore-based virtual screening (PBVS) and docking-based virtual screening (DBVS) methods. METHODS: All virtual screens were performed on two data sets of small molecules with both actives and decoys against eight structurally diverse protein targets, namely angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE), acetylcholinesterase (AChE), androgen receptor (AR), D-alanyl-D-alanine carboxypeptidase (DacA), dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR), estrogen receptors alpha (ERalpha), HIV-1 protease (HIV-pr), and thymidine kinase (TK). Each pharmacophore model was constructed based on several X-ray structures of protein-ligand complexes. Virtual screens were performed using four screening standards, the program Catalyst for PBVS and three docking programs (DOCK, GOLD and Glide) for DBVS. RESULTS: Of the sixteen sets of virtual screens (one target versus two testing databases), the enrichment factors of fourteen cases using the PBVS method were higher than those using DBVS methods. The average hit rates over the eight targets at 2% and 5% of the highest ranks of the entire databases for PBVS are much higher than those for DBVS. CONCLUSION: The PBVS method outperformed DBVS methods in retrieving actives from the databases in our tested targets, and is a powerful method in drug discovery.

SUBMITTER: Chen Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4007494 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pharmacophore-based virtual screening versus docking-based virtual screening: a benchmark comparison against eight targets.

Chen Zhi Z Li Hong-lin HL Zhang Qi-jun QJ Bao Xiao-guang XG Yu Kun-qian KQ Luo Xiao-min XM Zhu Wei-liang WL Jiang Hua-liang HL

Acta pharmacologica Sinica 20091123 12

<h4>Aim</h4>This study was conducted to compare the efficiencies of two virtual screening approaches, pharmacophore-based virtual screening (PBVS) and docking-based virtual screening (DBVS) methods.<h4>Methods</h4>All virtual screens were performed on two data sets of small molecules with both actives and decoys against eight structurally diverse protein targets, namely angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE), acetylcholinesterase (AChE), androgen receptor (AR), D-alanyl-D-alanine carboxypeptidase ( ...[more]

PMID: 19935678

Similar Datasets

Project description:Virtual screening (VS) is a well-established method in the initial stages of many drug and material design projects. VS is typically performed using structure-based approaches such as molecular docking, or various ligand-based approaches. Most docking tools were designed to be as global as possible, and consequently only require knowledge on the 3D structure of the biotarget. In contrast, many ligand-based approaches (e.g., 3D-QSAR and pharmacophore) require prior development of project-specific predictive models. Depending on the type of model (e.g., classification or regression), predictive ability is typically evaluated using metrics of performance on either the training set (e.g.,QCV2) or the test set (e.g., specificity, selectivity or QF1/F2/F32). However, none of these metrics were developed with VS in mind, and consequently, their ability to reliably assess the performances of a model in the context of VS is at best limited. With this in mind we have recently reported the development of the enrichment optimization algorithm (EOA). EOA derives QSAR models in the form of multiple linear regression (MLR) equations for VS by optimizing an enrichment-based metric in the space of the descriptors. Here we present an improved version of the algorithm which better handles active compounds and which also takes into account information on inactive (either known inactive or decoy) compounds. We compared the improved EOA in small-scale VS experiments with three common docking tools, namely, Glide-SP, GOLD and AutoDock Vina, employing five molecular targets (acetylcholinesterase, human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease, MAP kinase p38 alpha, urokinase-type plasminogen activator, and trypsin I). We found that EOA consistently outperformed all docking tools in terms of the area under the ROC curve (AUC) and EF1% metrics that measured the overall and initial success of the VS process, respectively. This was the case when the docking metrics were calculated based on a consensus approach and when they were calculated based on two different sets of single crystal structures. Finally, we propose that EOA could be combined with molecular docking to derive target-specific scoring functions.

Dataset Information

Pharmacophore-based virtual screening versus docking-based virtual screening: a benchmark comparison against eight targets.

Publications

Pharmacophore-based virtual screening versus docking-based virtual screening: a benchmark comparison against eight targets.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets