Suppr超能文献

Autodock Vina 采用更精确的结合构象,但 Autodock4 形成更好的结合亲和力。

Autodock Vina Adopts More Accurate Binding Poses but Autodock4 Forms Better Binding Affinity.

机构信息

Department of Theoretical Physics , Ho Chi Minh City University of Science , Ho Chi Minh City 700000 , Vietnam.

Laboratory of Theoretical and Computational Biophysics , Ton Duc Thang University , Ho Chi Minh City 700000 , Vietnam.

出版信息

J Chem Inf Model. 2020 Jan 27;60(1):204-211. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00778. Epub 2020 Jan 7.

Abstract

The binding pose and affinity between a ligand and enzyme are very important pieces of information for computer-aided drug design. In the initial stage of a drug discovery project, this information is often obtained by using molecular docking methods. Autodock4 and Autodock Vina are two commonly used open-source and free software tools to perform this task, and each has been cited more than 6000 times in the last ten years. It is of great interest to compare the success rate of the two docking software programs for a large and diverse set of protein-ligand complexes. In this study, we selected 800 protein-ligand complexes for which both PDB structures and experimental binding affinity are available. Docking calculations were performed for these complexes using both Autodock4 and Autodock Vina with different docking options related to computing resource consumption and accuracy. Our calculation results are in good agreement with a previous study that the Vina approach converges much faster than AD4 one. However, interestingly, AD4 shows a better performance than Vina over 21 considered targets, whereas the Vina protocol is better than the AD4 package for 10 other targets. There are 16 complexes for which both the AD4 and Vina protocols fail to produce a reasonable correlation with respected experiments so both are not suitable to use to estimate binding free energies for these cases. In addition, the best docking option for performing the AD4 approach is the option. However, the option is the best solution for carrying out Vina docking. The obtained results probably will be useful for future docking studies in deciding which program to use.

摘要

配体和酶之间的结合构象和亲和力是计算机辅助药物设计的非常重要的信息。在药物发现项目的初始阶段,这些信息通常是通过使用分子对接方法获得的。Autodock4 和 Autodock Vina 是两种常用的开源免费软件工具,用于执行此任务,在过去十年中,这两种软件工具各自被引用了超过 6000 次。比较两种对接软件程序对一大组不同的蛋白质-配体复合物的成功率是非常有趣的。在这项研究中,我们选择了 800 个具有pdb 结构和实验结合亲和力的蛋白质-配体复合物。使用 Autodock4 和 Autodock Vina 对这些复合物进行了对接计算,对接选项与计算资源消耗和准确性有关。我们的计算结果与之前的一项研究结果一致,即 Vina 方法的收敛速度比 AD4 方法快得多。然而,有趣的是,AD4 在 21 个考虑的目标中比 Vina 表现得更好,而 Vina 协议在另外 10 个目标中比 AD4 包表现得更好。有 16 个复合物,AD4 和 Vina 协议都不能产生与相应实验的合理相关性,因此这两种方法都不适合用于估计这些情况下的结合自由能。此外,执行 AD4 方法的最佳对接选项是 选项。然而,执行 Vina 对接的最佳解决方案是 选项。获得的结果可能对未来的对接研究有用,以决定使用哪个程序。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验