Scinovex
reviewTop 1% cited

Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions

Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · 2002 · Vol. 47(4) · pp. 409–443
Inbal HalperinBuyong MaHaim J. WolfsonRuth Nussinov

Abstract

The docking field has come of age. The time is ripe to present the principles of docking, reviewing the current state of the field. Two reasons are largely responsible for the maturity of the computational docking area. First, the early optimism that the very presence of the "correct" native conformation within the list of predicted docked conformations signals a near solution to the docking problem, has been replaced by the stark realization of the extreme difficulty of the next scoring/ranking step. Second, in the last couple of years more realistic approaches to handling molecular flexibility in docking schemes have emerged. As in folding, these derive from concepts abstracted from statistical mechanics, namely, populations. Docking and folding are interrelated. From the purely physical standpoint, binding and folding are analogous processes, with similar underlying principles. Computationally, the tools developed for docking will be tremendously useful for folding. For large, multidomain proteins, domain docking is probably the only rational way, mimicking the hierarchical nature of protein folding. The complexity of the problem is huge. Here we divide the computational docking problem into its two separate components. As in folding, solving the docking problem involves efficient search (and matching) algorithms, which cover the relevant conformational space, and selective scoring functions, which are both efficient and effectively discriminate between native and non-native solutions. It is universally recognized that docking of drugs is immensely important. However, protein-protein docking is equally so, relating to recognition, cellular pathways, and macromolecular assemblies. Proteins function when they are bound to other molecules. Consequently, we present the review from both the computational and the biological points of view. Although large, it covers only partially the extensive body of literature, relating to small (drug) and to large protein-protein molecule docking, to rigid and to flexible. Unfortunately, when reviewing these, a major difficulty in assessing the results is the non-uniformity in the formats in which they are presented in the literature. Consequently, we further propose a way to rectify it here.

Computational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Structure and DynamicsEnzyme Structure and FunctionDocking (animal)Searching the conformational space for dockingMacromolecular dockingComputer scienceProtein–ligand dockingProtein foldingComputational biologyArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmProtein structure

MeSH terms

AlgorithmsAnimalsBinding SitesDNAHydrogen BondingLigandsModels, TheoreticalProtein ConformationProteinsDrug DesignComputational BiologyMacromolecular SubstancesStatic Electricity
Citations
1,239
FWCI
71.75
field-weighted impact
References
281
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
Cited by
Insights into Protein–Ligand Interactions: Mechanisms, Models, and Methods
International Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2016 · 1,559 citations
CAPRI: A Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions
Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · 2003 · 707 citations
A semiempirical free energy force field with charge‐based desolvation
Journal of Computational Chemistry · 2007 · 2,203 citations
Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy
Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · 2004 · 567 citations
Protein–ligand docking: Current status and future challenges
Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · 2006 · 991 citations
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.