## Journal article: Are predefined decoy sets of ligand poses able to quantify scoring function accuracy?

No Thumbnail Available
##### Files
There are no files associated with this item.
February 2012
Journal article
##### Abstract
Due to the large number of different docking programs and scoring functions available, researchers are faced with the problem of selecting the most suitable one when starting a structure-based drug discovery project. To guide the decision process, several studies comparing different docking and scoring approaches have been published. In the context of comparing scoring function performance, it is common practice to use a predefined, computer-generated set of ligand poses (decoys) and to reevaluate their score using the set of scoring functions to be compared. But are predefined decoy sets able to unambiguously evaluate and rank different scoring functions with respect to pose prediction performance? This question arose when the pose prediction performance of our piecewise linear potential derived scoring functions (Korb et al. in J Chem Inf Model 49:84–96, 2009) was assessed on a standard decoy set (Cheng et al. in J Chem Inf Model 49:1079–1093, 2009). While they showed excellent pose identification performance when they were used for rescoring of the predefined decoy conformations, a pronounced degradation in performance could be observed when they were directly applied in docking calculations using the same test set. This implies that on a discrete set of ligand poses only the rescoring performance can be evaluated. For comparing the pose prediction performance in a more rigorous manner, the search space of each scoring function has to be sampled extensively as done in the docking calculations performed here. We were able to identify relative strengths and weaknesses of three scoring functions (ChemPLP, GoldScore, and Astex Statistical Potential) by analyzing the performance for subsets of the complexes grouped by different properties of the active site. However, reasons for the overall poor performance of all three functions on this test set compared to other test sets of similar size could not be identified.
540 Chemistry
##### Keywords
docking , ranking , conformational space , sampling , active-site properties
##### Published in
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design ; 26 (2012), 2. - pp. 185-197. - ISSN 0920-654X. - eISSN 1573-4951
##### Cite This
ISO 690KORB, Oliver, Tim TEN BRINK, Fredrick Robin DEVADOSS, Matthias KEIL, Thomas E. EXNER, 2012. Are predefined decoy sets of ligand poses able to quantify scoring function accuracy?. In: Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design. 26(2), pp. 185-197. ISSN 0920-654X. eISSN 1573-4951. Available under: doi: 10.1007/s10822-011-9539-5
BibTex
@article{Korb2012-02prede-19703,
year={2012},
doi={10.1007/s10822-011-9539-5},
title={Are predefined decoy sets of ligand poses able to quantify scoring function accuracy?},
number={2},
volume={26},
issn={0920-654X},
journal={Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design},
pages={185--197},
author={Korb, Oliver and ten Brink, Tim and Devadoss, Fredrick Robin and Keil, Matthias and Exner, Thomas E.}
}

RDF
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" >
<dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/52"/>
<dc:contributor>Exner, Thomas E.</dc:contributor>
<foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
<void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
<dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/29"/>
<dcterms:title>Are predefined decoy sets of ligand poses able to quantify scoring function accuracy?</dcterms:title>
<dc:contributor>Korb, Oliver</dc:contributor>
<dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2012-07-05T07:49:06Z</dcterms:available>
<dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/52"/>
<dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2012-07-05T07:49:06Z</dc:date>
<dcterms:issued>2012-02</dcterms:issued>
<dc:contributor>ten Brink, Tim</dc:contributor>
<dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
<dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Due to the large number of different docking programs and scoring functions available, researchers are faced with the problem of selecting the most suitable one when starting a structure-based drug discovery project. To guide the decision process, several studies comparing different docking and scoring approaches have been published. In the context of comparing scoring function performance, it is common practice to use a predefined, computer-generated set of ligand poses (decoys) and to reevaluate their score using the set of scoring functions to be compared. But are predefined decoy sets able to unambiguously evaluate and rank different scoring functions with respect to pose prediction performance? This question arose when the pose prediction performance of our piecewise linear potential derived scoring functions (Korb et al. in J Chem Inf Model 49:84–96, 2009) was assessed on a standard decoy set (Cheng et al. in J Chem Inf Model 49:1079–1093, 2009). While they showed excellent pose identification performance when they were used for rescoring of the predefined decoy conformations, a pronounced degradation in performance could be observed when they were directly applied in docking calculations using the same test set. This implies that on a discrete set of ligand poses only the rescoring performance can be evaluated. For comparing the pose prediction performance in a more rigorous manner, the search space of each scoring function has to be sampled extensively as done in the docking calculations performed here. We were able to identify relative strengths and weaknesses of three scoring functions (ChemPLP, GoldScore, and Astex Statistical Potential) by analyzing the performance for subsets of the complexes grouped by different properties of the active site. However, reasons for the overall poor performance of all three functions on this test set compared to other test sets of similar size could not be identified.</dcterms:abstract>
<dc:creator>Korb, Oliver</dc:creator>
<dc:creator>ten Brink, Tim</dc:creator>
<dc:contributor>Keil, Matthias</dc:contributor>
<dc:creator>Keil, Matthias</dc:creator>
<bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/19703"/>
<dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
<dc:language>eng</dc:language>