Dataset Information

How good are AlphaFold models for docking-based virtual screening?

ABSTRACT: A crucial component in structure-based drug discovery is the availability of high-quality three-dimensional structures of the protein target. Whenever experimental structures were not available, homology modeling has been, so far, the method of choice. Recently, AlphaFold (AF), an artificial-intelligence-based protein structure prediction method, has shown impressive results in terms of model accuracy. This outstanding success prompted us to evaluate how accurate AF models are from the perspective of docking-based drug discovery. We compared the high-throughput docking (HTD) performance of AF models with their corresponding experimental PDB structures using a benchmark set of 22 targets. The AF models showed consistently worse performance using four docking programs and two consensus techniques. Although AlphaFold shows a remarkable ability to predict protein architecture, this might not be enough to guarantee that AF models can be reliably used for HTD, and post-modeling refinement strategies might be key to increase the chances of success.

SUBMITTER: Scardino V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9852548 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How good are AlphaFold models for docking-based virtual screening?

Scardino Valeria V Di Filippo Juan I JI Cavasotto Claudio N CN

iScience 20221230 1

A crucial component in structure-based drug discovery is the availability of high-quality three-dimensional structures of the protein target. Whenever experimental structures were not available, homology modeling has been, so far, the method of choice. Recently, AlphaFold (AF), an artificial-intelligence-based protein structure prediction method, has shown impressive results in terms of model accuracy. This outstanding success prompted us to evaluate how accurate AF models are from the perspecti ...[more]

PMID: 36686396

Similar Datasets

Project description:Virtual screening (VS) is a well-established method in the initial stages of many drug and material design projects. VS is typically performed using structure-based approaches such as molecular docking, or various ligand-based approaches. Most docking tools were designed to be as global as possible, and consequently only require knowledge on the 3D structure of the biotarget. In contrast, many ligand-based approaches (e.g., 3D-QSAR and pharmacophore) require prior development of project-specific predictive models. Depending on the type of model (e.g., classification or regression), predictive ability is typically evaluated using metrics of performance on either the training set (e.g.,QCV2) or the test set (e.g., specificity, selectivity or QF1/F2/F32). However, none of these metrics were developed with VS in mind, and consequently, their ability to reliably assess the performances of a model in the context of VS is at best limited. With this in mind we have recently reported the development of the enrichment optimization algorithm (EOA). EOA derives QSAR models in the form of multiple linear regression (MLR) equations for VS by optimizing an enrichment-based metric in the space of the descriptors. Here we present an improved version of the algorithm which better handles active compounds and which also takes into account information on inactive (either known inactive or decoy) compounds. We compared the improved EOA in small-scale VS experiments with three common docking tools, namely, Glide-SP, GOLD and AutoDock Vina, employing five molecular targets (acetylcholinesterase, human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease, MAP kinase p38 alpha, urokinase-type plasminogen activator, and trypsin I). We found that EOA consistently outperformed all docking tools in terms of the area under the ROC curve (AUC) and EF1% metrics that measured the overall and initial success of the VS process, respectively. This was the case when the docking metrics were calculated based on a consensus approach and when they were calculated based on two different sets of single crystal structures. Finally, we propose that EOA could be combined with molecular docking to derive target-specific scoring functions.

Dataset Information

How good are AlphaFold models for docking-based virtual screening?

Publications

How good are AlphaFold models for docking-based virtual screening?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets