Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 11, 2026

A Bilingual Computational Workflow for Identifying Potential PLK1 Inhibitors in American Sign Language and English
Published on: April 3, 2026
Applying DEKOIS 2.0 in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of preparation procedures and score
Tamer M Ibrahim1, Matthias R Bauer2, Frank M Boeckler2
1Laboratory for Molecular Design and Pharmaceutical Biophysics, Department of Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Chemistry, Institute of Pharmacy, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany ; Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy and Biotechnology, German University in Cairo, Cairo, 11835 Egypt.
Background:
Structure-based virtual screening techniques can help to identify new lead structures and complement other screening approaches in drug discovery. Prior to docking, the data (protein crystal structures and ligands) should be prepared with great attention to molecular and chemical details.
Results:
Using a subset of 18 diverse targets from the recently introduced DEKOIS 2.0 benchmark set library, we found differences in the virtual screening performance of two popular docking tools (GOLD and Glide) when employing two different commercial packages (e.g. MOE and Maestro) for preparing input data. We systematically investigated the possible factors that can be responsible for the found differences in selected sets. For the Angiotensin-I-converting enzyme dataset, preparation of the bioactive molecules clearly exerted the highest influence on VS performance compared to preparation of the decoys or the target structure. The major contributing factors were different protonation states, molecular flexibility, and differences in the input conformation (particularly for cyclic moieties) of bioactives. In addition, score normalization strategies eliminated the biased docking scores shown by GOLD (ChemPLP) for the larger bioactives and produced a better performance. Generalizing these normalization strategies on the 18 DEKOIS 2.0 sets, improved the performances for the majority of GOLD (ChemPLP) docking, while it showed detrimental performances for the majority of Glide (SP) docking.
Conclusions:
In conclusion, we exemplify herein possible issues particularly during the preparation stage of molecular data and demonstrate to which extent these issues can cause perturbations in the virtual screening performance. We provide insights into what problems can occur and should be avoided, when generating benchmarks to characterize the virtual screening performance. Particularly, careful selection of an appropriate molecular preparation setup for the bioactive set and the use of score normalization for docking with GOLD (ChemPLP) appear to have a great importance for the screening performance. For virtual screening campaigns, we recommend to invest time and effort into including alternative preparation workflows into the generation of the master library, even at the cost of including multiple representations of each molecule. Graphical AbstractUsing DEKOIS 2.0 benchmark sets in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of molecular preparation and score normalization.
More Related Videos
05:08Application of I TASSER, trRosetta, UCSF Chimera, HADDOCK server, and HEX loria for De Novo and In Silico Design of Proteins
Published on: July 8, 2025
10:29Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Activity Prediction, and Molecular Dynamics of Non-nucleotide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
Published on: May 9, 2025