Abstract
Most of the benchmark studies on docking-scoring methods reported in the last decade conclude that no single scoring function performs well across different protein targets. In this study a comparison of thirteen commonly used force field and empirical scoring functions as implemented in DOCK, AMMOS, X-Score and FRED is carried out on five proteins with diverse binding pockets. The performance is analyzed in relation to the physicochemical properties of the binding sites. The solvation effects are considered via the Generalized Born/Surface Area (GBSA) solvation method for one of the assessed scoring functions. We examined the ability of these scoring functions to discriminate between active and inactive compounds over receptor-based focused libraries. Our results demonstrated that the employed here empirical scoring functions were more appropriate for the pocket of predominant hydrophobic nature while the force field scoring functions performed better on the mixed or polar pockets.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.