An Extensive Test of 14 Scoring Functions Using the PDBbind Refined Set of 800 Protein−Ligand Complexes

Citations Over TimeTop 1% of 2004 papers

Abstract

Fourteen popular scoring functions, i.e., X-Score, DrugScore, five scoring functions in the Sybyl software (D-Score, PMF-Score, G-Score, ChemScore, and F-Score), four scoring functions in the Cerius2 software (LigScore, PLP, PMF, and LUDI), two scoring functions in the GOLD program (GoldScore and ChemScore), and HINT, were tested on the refined set of the PDBbind database, a set of 800 diverse protein-ligand complexes with high-resolution crystal structures and experimentally determined Ki or Kd values. The focus of our study was to assess the ability of these scoring functions to predict binding affinities based on the experimentally determined high-resolution crystal structures of proteins in complex with their ligands. The quantitative correlation between the binding scores produced by each scoring function and the known binding constants of the 800 complexes was computed. X-Score, DrugScore, Sybyl::ChemScore, and Cerius2::PLP provided better correlations than the other scoring functions with standard deviations of 1.8-2.0 log units. These four scoring functions were also found to be robust enough to carry out computation directly on unaltered crystal structures. To examine how well scoring functions predict the binding affinities for ligands bound to the same target protein, the performance of these 14 scoring functions were evaluated on three subsets of protein-ligand complexes from the test set: HIV-1 protease complexes (82 entries), trypsin complexes (45 entries), and carbonic anhydrase II complexes (40 entries). Although the results for the HIV-1 protease subset are less than desirable, several scoring functions are able to satisfactorily predict the binding affinities for the trypsin and the carbonic anhydrase II subsets with standard deviation as low as 1.0 log unit (corresponding to 1.3-1.4 kcal/mol at room temperature). Our results demonstrate the strengths as well as the weaknesses of current scoring functions for binding affinity prediction.

Related Papers

• → Prim�rzerlegung in Steinschen Algebren(1964)32 cited
• → �ber unirationale Scharen auf algebraischen Mannigfaltigkeiten(1966)4 cited
• → Produkttreue Klassen universeller Algebren(1969)1 cited
• → Approximation of fixed points of multifunctions in partial metric spaces(2015)
• → ИСПОЛЬЗОВAНИЕ ПОТЕНЦИAЛA СОЦИAЛЬНЫХ ПAРТНЕРОВ В ПОДГОТОВКЕ БУДУЩИХ ПЕДAГОГОВ(2024)