Abstract:Eleven popular scoring functions have been tested on 100 protein-ligand complexes to evaluate their abilities to reproduce experimentally determined structures and binding affinities. They include four scoring functions implemented in the LigFit module in Cerius2 (LigScore, PLP, PMF, and LUDI), four scoring functions implemented in the CScore module in SYBYL (F-Score, G-Score, D-Score, and ChemScore), the scoring function implemented in the AutoDock program, and two stand-alone scoring functions (DrugScore and X-Score). These scoring functions are not tested in the context of a particular docking program. Instead, conformational sampling and scoring are separated into two consecutive steps. First, an exhaustive conformational sampling is performed by using the AutoDock program to generate an ensemble of docked conformations for each ligand molecule. This conformational ensemble is required to cover the entire conformational space as much as possible rather than to focus on a few energy minima. Then, each scoring function is applied to score this conformational ensemble to see if it can identify the experimentally observed conformation from all of the other decoys. Among all of the scoring functions under test, six of them, i.e., PLP, F-Score, LigScore, DrugScore, LUDI, and X-Score, yield success rates higher than the AutoDock scoring function. The success rates of these six scoring functions range from 66% to 76% if using root-mean-square deviation < or =2.0 A as the criterion. Combining any two or three of these six scoring functions into a consensus scoring scheme further improves the success rate to nearly 80% or even higher. However, when applied to reproduce the experimentally determined binding affinities of the 100 protein-ligand complexes, only X-Score, PLP, DrugScore, and G-Score are able to give correlation coefficients over 0.50. All of the 11 scoring functions are further inspected by their abilities to construct a descriptive, funnel-shaped energy surface for protein-ligand complexation. The results indicate that X-Score and DrugScore perform better than the other ones at this aspect.

The role of binding entropy in the refinement of protein-ligand docking predictions: analysis based on the use of 11 scoring functions

The Interprotein Scoring Noises in Glide Docking Scores

Optimization of Molecular Docking Scores with Support Vector Rank Regression

Comparative Evaluation of 11 Scoring Functions for Molecular Docking

Inclusion of Solvation and Entropy in the Knowledge-Based Scoring Function for Protein-Ligand Interactions

Inclusion of the Orientational Entropic Effect and Low-Resolution Experimental Information for Protein-Protein Docking in Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions (CAPRI).

Comparative studies of 14 binding free energies scoring functions

An Overview of Scoring Functions Used for Protein–Ligand Interactions in Molecular Docking

Progress in the Scoring Functions of Protein-Protein Docking

Assessment of scoring functions for computational models of protein-protein interfaces

Further Development and Validation of Empirical Scoring Functions for Structure-Based Binding Affinity Prediction

Assessing the Performance of the Molecular Mechanics/poisson Boltzmann Surface Area and Molecular Mechanics/generalized Born Surface Area Methods. II. the Accuracy of Ranking Poses Generated from Docking

Scoring Functions and Their Evaluation Methods for Protein-Ligand Docking: Recent Advances and Future Directions.

Comprehensive Assessment of Flexible-Ligand Docking Algorithms: Current Effectiveness and Challenges

Are predefined decoy sets of ligand poses able to quantify scoring function accuracy?

Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power.

Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set.

An Extensive Test of 14 Scoring Functions Using the Pdbbind Refined Set of 800 Protein-Ligand Complexes

Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on an Updated Benchmark: 2. Evaluation Methods and General Results.

Improving Protein-Peptide Docking Results Via Pose-Clustering and Rescoring with a Combined Knowledge-Based and MM-GBSA Scoring Function.

Molecular Docking Improvement: Coefficient Adaptive Genetic Algorithms for Multiple Scoring Functions