↓ Skip to main content

Hit Identification and Optimization in Virtual Screening: Practical Recommendations Based on a Critical Literature Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
219 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
459 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hit Identification and Optimization in Virtual Screening: Practical Recommendations Based on a Critical Literature Analysis
Published in
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, June 2013
DOI 10.1021/jm301916b
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tian Zhu, Shuyi Cao, Pin-Chih Su, Ram Patel, Darshan Shah, Heta B. Chokshi, Richard Szukala, Michael E. Johnson, Kirk E. Hevener

Abstract

A critical analysis of virtual screening results published between 2007 and 2011 was performed. The activity of reported hit compounds from over 400 studies was compared to their hit identification criteria. Hit rates and ligand efficiencies were calculated to assist in these analyses, and the results were compared with factors such as the size of the virtual library and the number of compounds tested. A series of promiscuity, druglike, and ADMET filters were applied to the reported hits to assess the quality of compounds reported, and a careful analysis of a subset of the studies that presented hit optimization was performed. These data allowed us to make several practical recommendations with respect to selection of compounds for experimental testing, definition of hit identification criteria, and general virtual screening hit criteria to allow for realistic hit optimization. A key recommendation is the use of size-targeted ligand efficiency values as hit identification criteria.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 459 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 <1%
United States 4 <1%
Brazil 4 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 440 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 102 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 90 20%
Student > Bachelor 50 11%
Student > Master 46 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 5%
Other 68 15%
Unknown 82 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 133 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 60 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 53 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 43 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 4%
Other 46 10%
Unknown 107 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 03 January 2024.
All research outputs
#947,897
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
#187
of 23,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,369
of 213,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
#1
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 213,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.