Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 26, Issue 8, pp 897–906 | Cite as

FRED and HYBRID docking performance on standardized datasets

  • Mark McGann


The docking performance of the FRED and HYBRID programs are evaluated on two standardized datasets from the Docking and Scoring Symposium of the ACS Spring 2011 national meeting. The evaluation includes cognate docking and virtual screening performance. FRED docks 70 % of the structures to within 2 Å in the cognate docking test. In the virtual screening test, FRED is found to have a mean AUC of 0.75. The HYBRID program uses a modified version of FRED’s algorithm that uses both ligand- and structure-based information to dock molecules, which increases its mean AUC to 0.78. HYBRID can also implicitly account for protein flexibility by making use of multiple crystal structures. Using multiple crystal structures improves HYBRID’s performance (mean AUC 0.80) with a negligible increase in docking time (~15 %).


Docking Virtual screening FRED HYBRID DUD Protein flexibility 


  1. 1.
    Cross JB, Thompson DC, Rai BK, Baber JC, Fan KY, Hu Y, Humblet C (2009) Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy. J Chem Inf Model 49:1455–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Warren GL, Andrews CW, Capelli A, Clarke B, LaLonde J, Lambert ML, Lindvall M, Nevins N, Semus SF, Senger S, Tedesco G, Wall ID, Woolven JM, Pieshoff CE, Head MS (2006) A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J Med Chem 49:5912–5913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGann MR (2011) FRED pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy. J Chem Inf Model 51:578–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cummings MD, DesJarlais RL, Gibbs AC, Mohan V, Jaegar EP (2005) Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. J Med Chem 48:962–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nicholls A (2008) What do we know and when do we know it? J Comput Aided Mol Des 22:133–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tuccinardi T, Botta M, Giordano A, Martinelli A (2010) Protein kinases: docking and homology modeling reliability. J Chem Inf Model 50:1432–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hawkins PCD, Skillman AG, Warren GL, Ellingson BA, Stahl MT (2010) Conformer generation with OMEGA: algorithm and validation using high quality structures from the protein databank and Cambridge structural database. J Chem Inf Model 50:572–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perola E, Charifson PS (2004) Conformational analysis of drug-like molecules bound to proteins: an extensive study of ligand reorganization upon binding. J Med Chem 47:2499–2510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown RD, Martin YC (1997) The information content of 2D and 3D structural descriptors relevant to ligand-receptor binding. J Chem Inf Model 37:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10. Accessed 30 April 2012
  11. 11.
    Hartshorn MJ, Verdonk ML, Chessari G, Brewerton SC, Mooij WTM, Mortenson PN, Murray CW (2007) Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance. J Med Chem 50:726–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jain A (2008) Bias, reporting and sharing: computational evaluations of docking methods. J Comput Aided Mol Des 22:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang N, Shoichet BK, Irwin JJ (2006) Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J Med Chem 49:6789–6801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olah M, Mracec M, Ostopovici L, Rad R, Bora A, Hadaruga N, Olah I, Banda M, Simon Z, Mracec M, Oprea TI (2004) Chemo informatics in drug discovery. In: Oprea TI (ed) WOMBAT: world of molecular bioactivity. Wiley-VCH, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OpenEye Scientific SoftwareSanta FeUSA
  2. 2.OpenEye Scientific SoftwareCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations