↓ Skip to main content

D3R Grand Challenge 2: blind prediction of protein–ligand poses, affinity rankings, and relative binding free energies

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, December 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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
155 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
D3R Grand Challenge 2: blind prediction of protein–ligand poses, affinity rankings, and relative binding free energies
Published in
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10822-017-0088-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zied Gaieb, Shuai Liu, Symon Gathiaka, Michael Chiu, Huanwang Yang, Chenghua Shao, Victoria A. Feher, W. Patrick Walters, Bernd Kuhn, Markus G. Rudolph, Stephen K. Burley, Michael K. Gilson, Rommie E. Amaro

Abstract

The Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) ran Grand Challenge 2 (GC2) from September 2016 through February 2017. This challenge was based on a dataset of structures and affinities for the nuclear receptor farnesoid X receptor (FXR), contributed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. The dataset contained 102 IC50 values, spanning six orders of magnitude, and 36 high-resolution co-crystal structures with representatives of four major ligand classes. Strong global participation was evident, with 49 participants submitting 262 prediction submission packages in total. Procedurally, GC2 mimicked Grand Challenge 2015 (GC2015), with a Stage 1 subchallenge testing ligand pose prediction methods and ranking and scoring methods, and a Stage 2 subchallenge testing only ligand ranking and scoring methods after the release of all blinded co-crystal structures. Two smaller curated sets of 18 and 15 ligands were developed to test alchemical free energy methods. This overview summarizes all aspects of GC2, including the dataset details, challenge procedures, and participant results. We also consider implications for progress in the field, while highlighting methodological areas that merit continued development. Similar to GC2015, the outcome of GC2 underscores the pressing need for methods development in pose prediction, particularly for ligand scaffolds not currently represented in the Protein Data Bank ( http://www.pdb.org ), and in affinity ranking and scoring of bound ligands.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 173 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 49 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 21%
Student > Master 17 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Professor 10 6%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 30 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 56 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 7%
Computer Science 11 6%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 42 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 01 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,322,437
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#109
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,901
of 446,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#2
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 86th 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 88% 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 446,393 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 84% 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 85% of its contemporaries.