↓ Skip to main content

1001 Ways to run AutoDock Vina for virtual screening

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
504 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
1001 Ways to run AutoDock Vina for virtual screening
Published in
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10822-016-9900-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammad Mahdi Jaghoori, Boris Bleijlevens, Silvia D. Olabarriaga

Abstract

Large-scale computing technologies have enabled high-throughput virtual screening involving thousands to millions of drug candidates. It is not trivial, however, for biochemical scientists to evaluate the technical alternatives and their implications for running such large experiments. Besides experience with the molecular docking tool itself, the scientist needs to learn how to run it on high-performance computing (HPC) infrastructures, and understand the impact of the choices made. Here, we review such considerations for a specific tool, AutoDock Vina, and use experimental data to illustrate the following points: (1) an additional level of parallelization increases virtual screening throughput on a multi-core machine; (2) capturing of the random seed is not enough (though necessary) for reproducibility on heterogeneous distributed computing systems; (3) the overall time spent on the screening of a ligand library can be improved by analysis of factors affecting execution time per ligand, including number of active torsions, heavy atoms and exhaustiveness. We also illustrate differences among four common HPC infrastructures: grid, Hadoop, small cluster and multi-core (virtual machine on the cloud). Our analysis shows that these platforms are suitable for screening experiments of different sizes. These considerations can guide scientists when choosing the best computing platform and set-up for their future large virtual screening experiments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 504 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 503 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 81 16%
Student > Bachelor 78 15%
Student > Master 74 15%
Researcher 57 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 5%
Other 83 16%
Unknown 107 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 115 23%
Chemistry 101 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 51 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 29 6%
Computer Science 25 5%
Other 61 12%
Unknown 122 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 August 2016.
All research outputs
#16,193,405
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#701
of 951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,771
of 312,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 951 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 312,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.