↓ Skip to main content

Searching for bioactive conformations of drug-like ligands with current force fields: how good are we?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cheminformatics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
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
Searching for bioactive conformations of drug-like ligands with current force fields: how good are we?
Published in
Journal of Cheminformatics, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13321-017-0216-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oya Gürsoy, Martin Smieško

Abstract

Drug-like ligands obtained from protein-ligand complexes deposited in the Protein Databank were subjected to conformational searching using various force fields and solvation settings. For each ligand, the resulting conformer pool was examined for the presence of the bioactive (crystal pose-like) conformation. Similarity of conformers toward the crystal-pose was quantified as the best achievable root mean squared deviation (RMSD, heavy atoms only). Analyzing the conformer pools generated by various force fields revealed only small differences in the likelihood of finding a crystal pose-like conformation. However, employing different solvents in the conformational search was found to be very important for achieving RMSDs below 1.0 Å. The best statistical values of likelihood were observed with a recently released force field covering a large portion of dihedral angles occurring in drug-like compounds in combination with the water as solvent. In order to enable computational chemists and modelers to efficiently use available software tools, we have additionally performed several focused analyses on ligands, grouped according to descriptors most relevant for the rational drug design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 25%
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 33 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Chemical Engineering 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 22 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 August 2019.
All research outputs
#5,098,295
of 24,903,209 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cheminformatics
#446
of 934 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,330
of 315,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cheminformatics
#13
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,903,209 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 934 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 315,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.