MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949226104 · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00078

FlexAID: Revisiting Docking on Non-Native-Complex Structures

2015· article· en· W2949226104 on OpenAlexafffund
Francis Gaudreault, Rafaël Najmanovich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Information and Modeling · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVirtual screeningComputer scienceDocking (animal)AutoDockPairwise comparisonArtificial intelligenceMonte Carlo methodBinding affinitiesMachine learningData miningAlgorithmMolecular dynamicsMathematicsChemistryComputational chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small-molecule protein docking is an essential tool in drug design and to understand molecular recognition. In the present work we introduce FlexAID, a small-molecule docking algorithm that accounts for target side-chain flexibility and utilizes a soft scoring function, i.e. one that is not highly dependent on specific geometric criteria, based on surface complementarity. The pairwise energy parameters were derived from a large dataset of true positive poses and negative decoys from the PDBbind database through an iterative process using Monte Carlo simulations. The prediction of binding poses is tested using the widely used Astex dataset as well as the HAP2 dataset, while performance in virtual screening is evaluated using a subset of the DUD dataset. We compare FlexAID to AutoDock Vina, FlexX, and rDock in an extensive number of scenarios to understand the strengths and limitations of the different programs as well as to reported results for Glide, GOLD, and DOCK6 where applicable. The most relevant among these scenarios is that of docking on flexible non-native-complex structures where as is the case in reality, the target conformation in the bound form is not known a priori. We demonstrate that FlexAID, unlike other programs, is robust against increasing structural variability. FlexAID obtains equivalent sampling success as GOLD and performs better than AutoDock Vina or FlexX in all scenarios against non-native-complex structures. FlexAID is better than rDock when there is at least one critical side-chain movement required upon ligand binding. In virtual screening, FlexAID results are lower on average than those of AutoDock Vina and rDock. The higher accuracy in flexible targets where critical movements are required, intuitive PyMOL-integrated graphical user interface and free source code as well as precompiled executables for Windows, Linux, and Mac OS make FlexAID a welcome addition to the arsenal of existing small-molecule protein docking methods.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Information and ModelingSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207