Comparison of Topological, Shape, and Docking Methods in Virtual Screening
G.B. McGaughey, R.P. Sheridan, C.I. Bayly, J.C. Culberson, C. Kreatsolas, S. Lindsley, V. Maiorov, J.-F. Truchon and W.D. Cornell, "Comparison of Topological, Shape, and Docking Methods in Virtual Screening", J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2007, 47 (4), pp 1504-1519
Virtual screening benchmarking studies were carried out on 11 targets to evaluate the performance of three commonly used approaches: 2D ligand similarity (Daylight, TOPOSIM), 3D ligand similarity (SQW, ROCS), and protein structure-based docking (FLOG, FRED, Glide). Active and decoy compound sets were assembled from both the MDDR and the Merck compound databases. Averaged over multiple targets, ligand-based methods outperformed docking algorithms. This was true for 3D ligand-based methods only when chemical typing was included. Using mean enrichment factor as a performance metric, Glide appears to be the best docking method among the three with FRED a close second. Results for all virtual screening methods are database dependent and can vary greatly for particular targets.
