MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086075983 · doi:10.2196/14232

Molecular Docking Using Chimera and Autodock Vina Software for Nonbioinformaticians

2020· article· en· W3086075983 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sania Safdar Butt, Yasmin Badshah, Maria Shabbir, Mehak Rafiq

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Bioinformatics and Biotechnology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocking (animal)AutoDockProtein–ligand dockingComputer scienceChimera (genetics)Computational biologyVirtual screeningDrug discoveryChemistryBioinformaticsBiologyBiochemistryIn silico

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the field of drug discovery, many methods of molecular modeling have been employed to study complex biological and chemical systems. Experimental strategies are integrated with computational approaches for the identification, characterization, and development of novel drugs and compounds. In modern drug designing, molecular docking is an approach that explores the confirmation of a ligand within the binding site of a macromolecule. To date, many software and tools for docking have been employed. AutoDock Vina (in UCSF [University of California, San Francisco] Chimera) is one of the computationally fastest and most accurate software employed in docking. In this paper, a sequential demonstration of molecular docking of the ligand fisetin with the target protein Akt has been provided, using AutoDock Vina in UCSF Chimera 1.12. The first step involves target protein ID retrieval from the protein database, the second step involves visualization of the protein structure in UCSF Chimera, the third step involves preparation of the target protein for docking, the fourth step involves preparation of the ligand for docking, the fifth step involves docking of the ligand and the target protein as Mol.2 files in Chimera by using AutoDock Vina, and the final step involves interpretation and analysis of the docking results. By following the guidelines and steps outlined in this paper, researchers with no previous background in bioinformatics research can perform computational docking in an easier and more user-friendly manner.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.011

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations256
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Bioinformatics and BiotechnologySame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207