↓ Skip to main content

Using physics-based pose predictions and free energy perturbation calculations to predict binding poses and relative binding affinities for FXR ligands in the D3R Grand Challenge 2

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Using physics-based pose predictions and free energy perturbation calculations to predict binding poses and relative binding affinities for FXR ligands in the D3R Grand Challenge 2
Published in
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10822-017-0075-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina Athanasiou, Sofia Vasilakaki, Dimitris Dellis, Zoe Cournia

Abstract

Computer-aided drug design has become an integral part of drug discovery and development in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, and is nowadays extensively used in the lead identification and lead optimization phases. The drug design data resource (D3R) organizes challenges against blinded experimental data to prospectively test computational methodologies as an opportunity for improved methods and algorithms to emerge. We participated in Grand Challenge 2 to predict the crystallographic poses of 36 Farnesoid X Receptor (FXR)-bound ligands and the relative binding affinities for two designated subsets of 18 and 15 FXR-bound ligands. Here, we present our methodology for pose and affinity predictions and its evaluation after the release of the experimental data. For predicting the crystallographic poses, we used docking and physics-based pose prediction methods guided by the binding poses of native ligands. For FXR ligands with known chemotypes in the PDB, we accurately predicted their binding modes, while for those with unknown chemotypes the predictions were more challenging. Our group ranked #1st (based on the median RMSD) out of 46 groups, which submitted complete entries for the binding pose prediction challenge. For the relative binding affinity prediction challenge, we performed free energy perturbation (FEP) calculations coupled with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. FEP/MD calculations displayed a high success rate in identifying compounds with better or worse binding affinity than the reference (parent) compound. Our studies suggest that when ligands with chemical precedent are available in the literature, binding pose predictions using docking and physics-based methods are reliable; however, predictions are challenging for ligands with completely unknown chemotypes. We also show that FEP/MD calculations hold predictive value and can nowadays be used in a high throughput mode in a lead optimization project provided that crystal structures of sufficiently high quality are available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 13 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 08 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,630,587
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#125
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,600
of 342,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 342,964 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.