The Ensemble Performance Index: An Improved Measure for Assessing Ensemble Pose Prediction Performance

We present a theoretical study on the performance of ensemble docking methodologies considering multiple protein structures. We perform a theoretical analysis of pose prediction experiments which is completely unbiased, as we make no assumptions about specific scoring functions, search paradigms, protein structures, or ligand data sets. We introduce a novel interpretable measure, the ensemble performance index (EPI), for the assessment of scoring performance in ensemble docking, which will be applied to simulated and real data sets.

[1]  Gerard J. Kleywegt,et al.  An Alternative Method for the Evaluation of Docking Performance: RSR vs RMSD , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[2]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[3]  Amy C. Anderson,et al.  Scoring Ensembles of Docked Protein: Ligand Interactions for Virtual Lead Optimization , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[4]  Marcel L. Verdonk,et al.  Protein-Ligand Docking against Non-Native Protein Conformers , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[5]  R. Glen,et al.  Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  Richard D. Taylor,et al.  Improved protein–ligand docking using GOLD , 2003, Proteins.

[7]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[8]  Thomas Stützle,et al.  Empirical Scoring Functions for Advanced Protein-Ligand Docking with PLANTS , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[9]  J. Pin,et al.  Virtual screening workflow development guided by the "receiver operating characteristic" curve approach. Application to high-throughput docking on metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 4. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[10]  Marcel L Verdonk,et al.  General and targeted statistical potentials for protein–ligand interactions , 2005, Proteins.

[11]  E. Fluder,et al.  Protocols for Bridging the Peptide to Nonpeptide Gap in Topological Similarity Searches. , 2001 .

[12]  X. Zou,et al.  Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: Considering protein structural variations in molecular docking , 2006, Proteins.

[13]  Paul N. Mortenson,et al.  Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  J. Gasteiger,et al.  FROM ATOMS AND BONDS TO THREE-DIMENSIONAL ATOMIC COORDINATES : AUTOMATIC MODEL BUILDERS , 1993 .

[15]  Christopher W. Murray,et al.  Empirical scoring functions. II. The testing of an empirical scoring function for the prediction of ligand-receptor binding affinities and the use of Bayesian regression to improve the quality of the model , 1998, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[16]  Anna Vulpetti,et al.  Assessment of Docking Poses: Interactions-Based Accuracy Classification (IBAC) versus Crystal Structure Deviations. , 2004 .

[17]  G. V. Paolini,et al.  Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes , 1997, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[18]  Christopher I. Bayly,et al.  Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the "Early Recognition" Problem , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[19]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Four-dimensional docking: a fast and accurate account of discrete receptor flexibility in ligand docking. , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.