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

Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools.

Maxwell D Cummings1, Renee L DesJarlais, Alan C Gibbs

  • 1Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, Eagleview Corporate Center, 665 Stockton Drive, Exton, Pennsylvania 19341, USA. mcumming@prdus.jnj.com

Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
|February 18, 2005
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

Identification of JNJ-61803534, a RORγt Inverse Agonist for the Treatment of Psoriasis.

Journal of medicinal chemistry·2025
Same author

Input Pose is Key to Performance of Free Energy Perturbation: Benchmarking with Monoacylglycerol Lipase.

Journal of chemical information and modeling·2024
Same author

Molecular determinants of ASIC1 modulation by divalent cations.

Scientific reports·2024
Same author

Discovery of Potent and Orally Bioavailable Pyridine N-Oxide-Based Factor XIa Inhibitors through Exploiting Nonclassical Interactions.

Journal of medicinal chemistry·2022
Same author

Novel Reagent Space: Identifying Unorderable but Readily Synthesizable Building Blocks.

ACS medicinal chemistry letters·2021
Same author

Development and implementation of an enterprise-wide predictive model for early absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion properties.

Future medicinal chemistry·2021
Same journal

Rational Development of Activatable Prodrugs of the GSTP1 Inhibitor NBDHEX: Turn-On NIR Fluorogenic Drug Delivery with Selective Anticancer Activity.

Journal of medicinal chemistry·2026
Same journal

One Face, Three Solutions: Structural Convergence in PD-L1 Inhibition across Antibodies, Macrocycles, and Small Molecules.

Journal of medicinal chemistry·2026
Same journal

A Potent and Selective Quinolone-Based PTPN22 Inhibitor with Improved Immunotherapeutic Activity.

Journal of medicinal chemistry·2026
Same journal

Structure-Based Discovery of (<i>E</i>)- and (<i>Z</i>)-4-Oxobut-2-enoate Derivatives as Novel Covalent Pin1 Inhibitors with Antitumor Activity.

Journal of medicinal chemistry·2026
Same journal

Hybrids of Benzenesulfonamide Oxadiazole Derivatives with Dual CA II and COX-2 Inhibitory Activity Demonstrating Antiglaucoma and Anti-inflammatory Action: Synthesis, In Silico Insights, and In Vitro and In Vivo Bioevaluation.

Journal of medicinal chemistry·2026
Same journal

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

Journal of medicinal chemistry·2026
See all related articles

This study compared docking programs for virtual screening, finding they improve hit rates over random selection. However, accurately predicting ligand poses similar to crystal structures varies by method and protein target.

Area of Science:

  • Computational chemistry
  • Drug discovery
  • Structural biology

Background:

  • Virtual screening is crucial for identifying drug candidates.
  • Docking programs predict ligand-protein interactions but performance varies.
  • Evaluating docking software is essential for optimizing drug discovery pipelines.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the performance of commercial docking programs in virtual screening.
  • To compare the accuracy of different docking methods across multiple protein targets.
  • To determine if docking poses can reliably predict known ligand-protein complex structures.

Main Methods:

  • Comparative analysis of five commercial docking programs.
  • Virtual screening of 1000 molecules against five protein targets.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Utilized known ligands and available crystal structures for validation.
  • Standardized experimental conditions across all tested docking methods.

    • Main Results:

    • Docking methods significantly improved hit rates compared to random screening for most targets.
    • The accuracy of docking poses in resembling crystal structures was inconsistent.
    • Performance varied considerably depending on the specific docking program and protein target used.

    Conclusions:

    • Commercial docking programs offer a valuable improvement over random selection in virtual screening.
    • Reliability in predicting accurate ligand-protein complex structures is method- and target-dependent.
    • Careful selection of docking tools and target considerations are necessary for successful virtual screening campaigns.