2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2009.03.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Targeted scoring functions for virtual screening

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

2
55
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
2
55
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The use of target-specific scoring models was comprehensively reviewed recently by Seifert. [16] The target-specific scoring models and pharmacophore constraints derived from the ISAC approach were validated on various data sets taking external test data into account. We performed structure-based virtual screening experiments for the targets thrombin, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B (PTP-1B) and checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of target-specific scoring models was comprehensively reviewed recently by Seifert. [16] The target-specific scoring models and pharmacophore constraints derived from the ISAC approach were validated on various data sets taking external test data into account. We performed structure-based virtual screening experiments for the targets thrombin, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B (PTP-1B) and checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the key strategies of the virtual screening was filtering the Protein-Ligand Interaction Fingerprint (PLIF) (Marcou and Rognan, 2007; ): Only docking poses that form a hydrogen bond (H-bond) and an ionic interaction with D107 were considered (de . This strategy can be recognized as "using prior knowledge" in SBVS campaigns (Seifert, 2009;Yuniarti et al, 2011). The customization of the SBVS protocols by filtering on key interactions has increased the SBVS quality significantly (de Sirci et al, 2012;Yuniarti et al, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a consequence, it is not possible to know a priori if a docking procedure is more suitable than another one for a particular task. Several attempts to increase docking accuracy and reliability, thus improving its VS performance, reported in literature concerned the development of optimized SFs, rescoring procedures and pose filtering methods 13,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31] . Among these strategies, the combination of different scoring functions (consenus scoring) to improve VS hit rates is a well known practice introduced by Charifson et al in 1999 31 that is still commonly applied [33][34][35][36][37][38] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%