FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4287093335> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4287093335 endingPage "2549" @default.
• W4287093335 startingPage "2549" @default.
• W4287093335 abstract "(1) Background: In silico approaches to rational drug design are among the fastest evolving ones. Depending on the available structural information for the biomacromolecule and the small molecule, the in silico methods are classified as ligand- and structure-based. The latter predict ligand–receptor binding using 3D structures of both molecules, whose computational simulation is referred to as molecular docking. It aims at estimating the binding affinity (approximated by scoring function) and the ligand binding pose in the receptor’s active site, which postulates a key role of the scoring functions in molecular docking algorithms. This study focuses on the performance of different types of scoring functions implemented in molecular modelling software packages. (2) Methods: An InterCriteria analysis (ICrA) was applied to assess the performance of the scoring functions available in MOE, GOLD, SeeSAR, and AutoDock Vina software platforms. The InterCriteria analysis was developed to distinguish possible relations between pairs of criteria when multiple objects are considered. All 12 investigated scoring functions were tested by docking a set of protease inhibitors in the binding sites of two protein targets. The dataset consisted of 88 benzamidine-type compounds with experimentally measured inhibitory constants for thrombin and trypsin, which allows for the objective assessment of the scoring functions performance. The results generated by the molecular docking were subjected to ICrA in order to analyze both docking energies as approximations of the binding affinities and RMSDs (root-mean-square deviation) as measures of the experimental binding pose proximity between the compounds and the co-crystalized ligand, based on the atoms in the common scaffold. (3) Results: The results obtained for the best poses, the average of the best 5 or 30 poses retained after docking, were analyzed. A comparison with the experimentally observed inhibitory effects was also performed. The InterCriteria analysis application confirms that the performance of the scoring functions for the same dataset of ligands depends on the studied protein. The analysis reveals that none of the studied scoring functions is a good predictor of the compounds’ binding affinities for the considered protein targets. (4) Conclusion: In terms of this analysis, the investigated scoring functions do not produce equivalent results, which suggests the necessity for their combined use in consensus docking studies." @default.
• W4287093335 created "2022-07-25" @default.
• W4287093335 creator A5002816115 @default.
• W4287093335 creator A5012321715 @default.
• W4287093335 creator A5030357505 @default.
• W4287093335 creator A5032920765 @default.
• W4287093335 creator A5038199341 @default.
• W4287093335 creator A5039885287 @default.
• W4287093335 creator A5047864176 @default.
• W4287093335 creator A5058442525 @default.
• W4287093335 creator A5069256656 @default.
• W4287093335 creator A5085302404 @default.
• W4287093335 date "2022-07-22" @default.
• W4287093335 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W4287093335 title "Application of InterCriteria Analysis to Assess the Performance of Scoring Functions in Molecular Docking Software Packages" @default.
• W4287093335 cites W1212579592 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W1605578858 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W1656114533 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W1963923094 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W1973191530 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W1986476355 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W1988771765 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W1993403967 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2005481380 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2013085020 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2028629022 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2042071104 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2050456292 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2093313511 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2114779636 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2134967712 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2158360182 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2208175234 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2334483166 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2403759617 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2744373403 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2795091364 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2803982990 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W2902812092 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W3047694860 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W3154663360 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W3172747904 @default.
• W4287093335 cites W4211007335 @default.
• W4287093335 doi "https://doi.org/10.3390/math10152549" @default.
• W4287093335 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4287093335 type Work @default.
• W4287093335 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4287093335 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4287093335 hasAuthorship W4287093335A5002816115 @default.
• W4287093335 hasAuthorship W4287093335A5012321715 @default.
• W4287093335 hasAuthorship W4287093335A5030357505 @default.
• W4287093335 hasAuthorship W4287093335A5032920765 @default.
• W4287093335 hasAuthorship W4287093335A5038199341 @default.
• W4287093335 hasAuthorship W4287093335A5039885287 @default.
• W4287093335 hasAuthorship W4287093335A5047864176 @default.
• W4287093335 hasAuthorship W4287093335A5058442525 @default.
• W4287093335 hasAuthorship W4287093335A5069256656 @default.
• W4287093335 hasAuthorship W4287093335A5085302404 @default.
• W4287093335 hasBestOaLocation W42870933351 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C103697762 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C124101348 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C2775905019 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C2777904410 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C2780152424 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C41685203 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C60644358 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C70721500 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C74187038 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C77319485 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C103697762 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C104317684 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C124101348 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C154945302 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C159110408 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C185592680 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C199360897 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C2775905019 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C2777904410 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C2780152424 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C41008148 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C41685203 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C55493867 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C60644358 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C70721500 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C71924100 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C74187038 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C77319485 @default.
• W4287093335 hasConceptScore W4287093335C86803240 @default.
• W4287093335 hasIssue "15" @default.

• next