↓ Skip to main content

Combining self- and cross-docking as benchmark tools: the performance of DockBench in the D3R Grand Challenge 2

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Combining self- and cross-docking as benchmark tools: the performance of DockBench in the D3R Grand Challenge 2
Published in
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10822-017-0051-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Veronica Salmaso, Mattia Sturlese, Alberto Cuzzolin, Stefano Moro

Abstract

Molecular docking is a powerful tool in the field of computer-aided molecular design. In particular, it is the technique of choice for the prediction of a ligand pose within its target binding site. A multitude of docking methods is available nowadays, whose performance may vary depending on the data set. Therefore, some non-trivial choices should be made before starting a docking simulation. In the same framework, the selection of the target structure to use could be challenging, since the number of available experimental structures is increasing. Both issues have been explored within this work. The pose prediction of a pool of 36 compounds provided by D3R Grand Challenge 2 organizers was preceded by a pipeline to choose the best protein/docking-method couple for each blind ligand. An integrated benchmark approach including ligand shape comparison and cross-docking evaluations was implemented inside our DockBench software. The results are encouraging and show that bringing attention to the choice of the docking simulation fundamental components improves the results of the binding mode predictions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 22%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Master 5 12%
Other 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 14 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 17%
Chemistry 7 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#17,350,971
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#736
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,573
of 325,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.