Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Here, we give an overview of the protein-ligand binding portion of the Statistical Assessment of Modeling of Proteins and Ligands 4 (SAMPL4) challenge, which focused on predicting binding of HIV integrase inhibitors in the catalytic core domain. The challenge encompassed three components--a small "virtual screening" challenge, a binding mode prediction component, and a small affinity prediction component. Here, we give summary results and statistics concerning the performance of all submissions at each of these challenges. Virtual screening was particularly challenging here in part because, in contrast to more typical virtual screening test sets, the inactive compounds were tested because they were thought to be likely binders, so only the very top predictions performed significantly better than random. Pose prediction was also quite challenging, in part because inhibitors in the set bind to three different sites, so even identifying the correct binding site was challenging. Still, the best methods managed low root mean squared deviation predictions in many cases. Here, we give an overview of results, highlight some features of methods which worked particularly well, and refer the interested reader to papers in this issue which describe specific submissions for additional details. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2014 | 10.1007/s10822-014-9723-5 | Journal of computer-aided molecular design |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
HIV integrase,Binding mode,Virtual screening,Pose prediction,Affinity,SAMPL4 | HIV Integrase Inhibitors,Binding site,Chemistry,Bioinformatics,Virtual screening,Integrase | Journal |
Volume | Issue | ISSN |
28 | 4 | 1573-4951 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
21 | 0.93 | 20 |
Authors | ||
10 | ||
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| David L. Mobley | 1 | 219 | 20.01 |
| Shuai Liu | 2 | 21 | 0.93 |
| Nathan M. Lim | 3 | 66 | 3.74 |
| Karisa L. Wymer | 4 | 54 | 2.48 |
| Alexander L. Perryman | 5 | 41 | 2.40 |
| Stefano Forli | 6 | 50 | 8.80 |
| Nan-Jie Deng | 7 | 37 | 2.32 |
| Justin Su | 8 | 21 | 0.93 |
| Kim Branson | 9 | 83 | 6.75 |
| Arthur J. Olson | 10 | 1683 | 178.40 |