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

Comparing protein-ligand docking programs is difficult.

Jason C Cole1, Christopher W Murray, J Willem M Nissink

  • 1Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Proteins
|June 7, 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

Modeling lipid homeostasis using stable isotope tracing and flux analysis.

Cell metabolism·2026
Same author

Quantifying Molecular Flexibility Using Crystallographically Accessible Conformational Space.

Journal of chemical information and modeling·2026
Same author

Creative Futures in Education: Building 'Imagination Infrastructures' for Microbiology and Beyond.

Microbial biotechnology·2025
Same author

Correspondence on "Taxonomy of Chemical Bondings: Opportunities and Challenges".

Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English)·2025
Same author

Strengthening the Capacity of Service Providers to Reduce the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on African, Caribbean, and Black Communities: Protocol for the COVID-19 African, Caribbean, and Black Providers Project 2.0 Implementation and Evaluation.

JMIR research protocols·2025
Same author

EML4-ALK Variant-Specific Genetic Interactions Shape Lung Tumorigenesis.

Cancer discovery·2025
Same journal

Engineered HSP90-MP65 Bivalent Fusion Antigen: A Novel Vaccine Candidate Against Invasive Candidiasis.

Proteins·2026
Same journal

Physics-Based Energy Functions for Computational Protein Design.

Proteins·2026
Same journal

Impact of Stabilizing Osmolytes on the Conformational Dynamics of Human and Rat Islet Amyloid Polypeptides.

Proteins·2026
Same journal

Stabilization of Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2 at Physiological pH: Contrasting Roles of CHAPS and Arginine in Aggregation Inhibition.

Proteins·2026
Same journal

Structural Insights Into the Function of Leishmania major Adenylosuccinate Lyase.

Proteins·2026
Same journal

Generalizing the Gaussian Network Model: Spanning-Tree Thermodynamics Shows Entropy-Driven KRAS Activation.

Proteins·2026
See all related articles

Comparing protein-ligand docking programs requires rigorous statistical analysis and careful interpretation of results. Minor methodological details significantly impact success rates, necessitating standardized testing for reliable comparisons.

Area of Science:

  • Computational chemistry
  • Structural biology
  • Drug discovery

Background:

  • Protein-ligand docking is crucial for drug discovery.
  • Previous comparisons of docking programs lack general applicability.
  • Standardized evaluation methods are needed for reliable results.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To identify critical factors for robust comparisons of protein-ligand docking programs.
  • To highlight the need for statistical rigor in evaluating docking performance.
  • To provide guidelines for designing fair and informative docking program comparisons.

Main Methods:

  • Review of recent comparative studies on protein-ligand docking programs.
  • Analysis of statistical requirements for pose-prediction and enrichment rate comparisons.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Evaluation of numerical and interaction-based measures for docking accuracy.
  • Consideration of test set diversity, experimental reliability, and methodological details.

    • Main Results:

    • Drawing general conclusions from docking program comparisons is challenging.
    • Statistical hypothesis testing is essential for determining significant differences.
    • Root-mean-square deviation requires careful interpretation and should be supplemented.
    • Methodological details, including starting geometries and search problem complexity, profoundly influence results.

    Conclusions:

    • Fair comparison of docking programs demands standardized complexity, computational time, and rigorous statistical analysis.
    • Careful interpretation of metrics and consideration of factors like crystal packing are vital.
    • Minor methodological variations can lead to significantly different outcomes, emphasizing the need for transparency and reproducibility.