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.

Comparison of Different Ranking Methods in Protein-Ligand Binding Site Prediction

A new protein-ligand binding sites prediction method based on the integration of protein sequence conservation information

A comprehensive survey on protein-ligand binding site prediction

A new protein binding pocket similarity measure based on comparison of 3D atom clouds: application to ligand prediction

Identification of Cavities on Protein Surface Using Multiple Computational Approaches for Drug Binding Site Prediction

Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on an Updated Benchmark: 1. Compilation of the Test Set

Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set.

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

PASSerRank: Prediction of Allosteric Sites with Learning to Rank

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

Comparative studies of 14 binding free energies scoring functions

Sorting protein decoys by machine-learning-to-rank

Bsitefinder, an Improved Protein-Binding Sites Prediction Server Based on Structural Alignment: More Accurate and Less Time-Consuming.

Accurate prediction of dynamic protein–ligand binding using P‐score ranking

Template‐guided method for protein–ligand complex structure prediction: Application to CASP15 protein–ligand studies

Boosting Prediction Performance of Protein-Protein Interaction Hot Spots by Using Structural Neighborhood Properties

Estimating the Similarity between Protein Pockets

Division of Protein Surface Patches and Its Application in Protein Binding Site Prediction

A Point Cloud Graph Neural Network for Protein–Ligand Binding Site Prediction

Comparative Evaluation of 11 Scoring Functions for Molecular Docking

A Generalized Protein-Ligand Scoring Framework with Balanced Scoring, Docking, Ranking and Screening Powers.