Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms.

Maria Kontoyianni1, Laura M McClellan, Glenn S Sokol

  • 1Computer Assisted Drug Discovery, Johnson and Johhnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, LLC, Welsh and McKean Roads, P.O. Box 776, Spring House, Pennsylvania 19477, USA. mkontoyi@prdus.jnj.com

Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
|January 23, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

5,5'-Methylenedisalicylic Acid Derivatives as Inhibitors of the Protein Phosphatase CppA in <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i>.

ACS medicinal chemistry letters·2026
Same author

Factors Driving Amyloid Beta Fibril Recognition by Cell Surface Receptors: A Computational Study.

Molecules (Basel, Switzerland)·2025
Same author

Elucidating structural and molecular requirements of somatostatin subtype-4 agonist bound complexes using quantum mechanics approaches.

Organic & biomolecular chemistry·2025
Same author

3-Thio-3,4,5-trisubstituted-1,2,4-triazoles: high affinity somatostatin receptor-4 agonist synthesis and structure-activity relationships.

RSC medicinal chemistry·2024
Same author

Equilibrium landscape of ingress/egress channels and gating residues of the Cytochrome P450 3A4.

PloS one·2024
Same author

Library size in virtual screening: is it truly a number's game?

Expert opinion on drug discovery·2022
Same journal

Small Molecules in Development for the Treatment of Sepsis: Insights into Drug Targets and Molecular Mechanisms.

Journal of medicinal chemistry·2026
Same journal

Isofagomine Derivatives as TcdB Glucosyltransferase Inhibitors.

Journal of medicinal chemistry·2026
Same journal

The One-Step Incorporation of Boron-10 Atom into Prostate Cancer-Targeted Fluorophores for Visualizing In Vivo Boron-10 Delivery and Intratumoral Distribution with Cellular Resolution.

Journal of medicinal chemistry·2026
Same journal

Design and Evaluation of Conformationally Locked Indole-Carboxylic Acids as Selective THRβ Agonists against MASH.

Journal of medicinal chemistry·2026
Same journal

Drug Screening of Nitroreductase Modulators Using an Atomic-Engineered Activatable Fluorescent Probe for Tumor Imaging.

Journal of medicinal chemistry·2026
Same journal

Reprogramming Acetaminophen Metabolism via Amide-to-Thioamide Modification to Prevent Drug-Induced Liver Injury.

Journal of medicinal chemistry·2026
See all related articles

This study evaluates docking programs for drug discovery, finding that no single algorithm excels universally. Algorithm performance varies by protein target, suggesting tailored approaches for better lead optimization.

Area of Science:

  • Computational Chemistry
  • Structural Biology
  • Drug Discovery

Background:

  • Molecular docking is crucial for lead optimization in drug discovery.
  • Existing docking algorithms often struggle to accurately predict experimental binding poses.
  • Consensus scoring methods improve virtual screening but assume top-ranked poses are most accurate.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the accuracy of leading docking programs in reproducing experimental binding modes.
  • To investigate whether docking algorithms exhibit bias towards specific scoring functions.
  • To identify if certain algorithms perform better for particular protein families.

Main Methods:

  • Evaluated five prominent docking programs: FlexX, DOCK, GOLD, LigandFit, and Glide.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Tested algorithms against 69 targets across 14 diverse protein families.
  • Analyzed all resultant poses, not just the top-ranked ones, to assess accuracy.

    • Main Results:

    • Significant performance variations were observed among the evaluated docking algorithms.
    • No single docking program consistently outperformed others across all targets.
    • A correlation was identified between the characteristics of protein active sites and the optimal docking algorithm.

    Conclusions:

    • The choice of docking algorithm should be guided by the specific protein target's active site properties.
    • Relying solely on top-ranked poses from docking can be misleading.
    • Further research is needed to develop more robust and versatile docking strategies for drug discovery.