Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Chem Inf Model. 2006 Jan-Feb;46(1):401-15.

On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors.

Author information

GDECS Computational Chemistry, AstraZeneca R&D, Mölndal, Sweden.

Erratum in

  • J Chem Inf Model. 2008 Jan;48(1):246.


Four of the most well-known, commercially available docking programs, FlexX, GOLD, GLIDE, and ICM, have been examined for their ligand-docking and virtual-screening capabilities. The relative performance of the programs in reproducing the native ligand conformation from starting SMILES strings for 164 high-resolution protein-ligand complexes is presented and compared. Applying only the native scoring functions, the latest versions of these four docking programs were also used to conduct virtual screening for 12 protein targets of therapeutic interest, involving both publicly available structures and AstraZeneca in-house structures. The capability of the four programs to correctly rank-order target-specific active compounds over alternative binders and nonbinders (decoys plus randomly selected compounds) and thereby enrich a small subset of a screening library is compared. Enrichments from the virtual-screening experiments are contrasted with those obtained with alternative 3D shape-matching and 2D similarity database-search methods.

PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons


    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for American Chemical Society
    Loading ...
    Support Center