Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.23173
DC FieldValue
dc.titleThe interprotein scoring noises in glide docking scores
dc.contributor.authorWang, W.
dc.contributor.authorZhou, X.
dc.contributor.authorHe, W.
dc.contributor.authorFan, Y.
dc.contributor.authorChen, Y.
dc.contributor.authorChen, X.
dc.date.accessioned2014-10-29T02:00:07Z
dc.date.available2014-10-29T02:00:07Z
dc.date.issued2012-01
dc.identifier.citationWang, W., Zhou, X., He, W., Fan, Y., Chen, Y., Chen, X. (2012-01). The interprotein scoring noises in glide docking scores. Proteins: Structure, Function and Bioinformatics 80 (1) : 169-183. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.23173
dc.identifier.issn08873585
dc.identifier.urihttp://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/106442
dc.description.abstractSmall molecule drugs are rarely selective enough to interact solely with their designated targets. Unintended "off-target" interactions often lead to side effects, but also serendipitously lead to new therapeutic uses. Identification of the off-targets of a compound is therefore of significant value to the evaluation of its developmental potential. In computational biology, the strategy of "reverse docking" has been introduced to predict the targets of a compound, which uses a compound to virtually screen a library of proteins, reversing the bait and prey in "normal" docking screenings. The present study shows that, in reverse docking, additional optimization of the scoring function may help to improve the target prediction accuracy. In a case study with the Glide scores, we found that only 57% of the ligand-protein relationships could be correctly identified in a library of 58 complexes whose crystal binding conformations were all able to be accurately reproduced. This was likely a result of the constant over- or under-estimation of the scores for specific proteins. In other words, there were interprotein noises in the Glide scores. Introducing a correction term based on protein characteristics improved the target-prediction accuracy by 27% (57-72%). It is our hope that this focused discussion on the Glide scores would invite further efforts to characterize and normalize this type of interprotein noises in all docking scores, so that better target prediction accuracy can be achieved with the strategy of reverse docking. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.description.urihttp://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prot.23173
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectNoise correction
dc.subjectScoring function
dc.subjectStatistical learning
dc.subjectStructure feature
dc.subjectVirtual screening
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentPHARMACY
dc.description.doi10.1002/prot.23173
dc.description.sourcetitleProteins: Structure, Function and Bioinformatics
dc.description.volume80
dc.description.issue1
dc.description.page169-183
dc.identifier.isiut000298598800014
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.