IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0171433.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The scoring bias in reverse docking and the score normalization strategy to improve success rate of target fishing

Author

Listed:
  • Qiyao Luo
  • Liang Zhao
  • Jianxing Hu
  • Hongwei Jin
  • Zhenming Liu
  • Liangren Zhang

Abstract

Target fishing often relies on the use of reverse docking to identify potential target proteins of ligands from protein database. The limitation of reverse docking is the accuracy of current scoring funtions used to distinguish true target from non-target proteins. Many contemporary scoring functions are designed for the virtual screening of small molecules without special optimization for reverse docking, which would be easily influenced by the properties of protein pockets, resulting in scoring bias to the proteins with certain properties. This bias would cause lots of false positives in reverse docking, interferring the identification of true targets. In this paper, we have conducted a large-scale reverse docking (5000 molecules to 100 proteins) to study the scoring bias in reverse docking by DOCK, Glide, and AutoDock Vina. And we found that there were actually some frequency hits, namely interference proteins in all three docking procedures. After analyzing the differences of pocket properties between these interference proteins and the others, we speculated that the interference proteins have larger contact area (related to the size and shape of protein pockets) with ligands (for all three docking programs) or higher hydrophobicity (for Glide), which could be the causes of scoring bias. Then we applied the score normalization method to eliminate this scoring bias, which was effective to make docking score more balanced between different proteins in the reverse docking of benchmark dataset. Later, the Astex Diver Set was utilized to validate the effect of score normalization on actual cases of reverse docking, showing that the accuracy of target prediction significantly increased by 21.5% in the reverse docking by Glide after score normalization, though there was no obvious change in the reverse docking by DOCK and AutoDock Vina. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of score normalization to eliminate the scoring bias and improve the accuracy of target prediction in reverse docking. Moreover, the properties of protein pockets causing scoring bias to certain proteins we found here can provide the theory basis to further optimize the scoring functions of docking programs for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Qiyao Luo & Liang Zhao & Jianxing Hu & Hongwei Jin & Zhenming Liu & Liangren Zhang, 2017. "The scoring bias in reverse docking and the score normalization strategy to improve success rate of target fishing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-19, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0171433
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171433
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171433
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171433&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0171433?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eugen Lounkine & Michael J. Keiser & Steven Whitebread & Dmitri Mikhailov & Jacques Hamon & Jeremy L. Jenkins & Paul Lavan & Eckhard Weber & Allison K. Doak & Serge Côté & Brian K. Shoichet & Laszlo U, 2012. "Large-scale prediction and testing of drug activity on side-effect targets," Nature, Nature, vol. 486(7403), pages 361-367, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Choo Jun Tan & Siew Chin Neoh & Chee Peng Lim & Samer Hanoun & Wai Peng Wong & Chu Kong Loo & Li Zhang & Saeid Nahavandi, 2019. "Application of an evolutionary algorithm-based ensemble model to job-shop scheduling," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 879-890, February.
    2. Armaghan W Naik & Joshua D Kangas & Christopher J Langmead & Robert F Murphy, 2013. "Efficient Modeling and Active Learning Discovery of Biological Responses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    3. Qing Ye & Chang-Yu Hsieh & Ziyi Yang & Yu Kang & Jiming Chen & Dongsheng Cao & Shibo He & Tingjun Hou, 2021. "A unified drug–target interaction prediction framework based on knowledge graph and recommendation system," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    4. Ruibo Zhang & Daniel Nolte & Cesar Sanchez-Villalobos & Souparno Ghosh & Ranadip Pal, 2024. "Topological regression as an interpretable and efficient tool for quantitative structure-activity relationship modeling," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Zheni Zeng & Yuan Yao & Zhiyuan Liu & Maosong Sun, 2022. "A deep-learning system bridging molecule structure and biomedical text with comprehension comparable to human professionals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Julian E Fuchs & Susanne von Grafenstein & Roland G Huber & Christian Kramer & Klaus R Liedl, 2013. "Substrate-Driven Mapping of the Degradome by Comparison of Sequence Logos," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0171433. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.