Skip to main content

Multiple protein structures and multiple ligands: effects on the apparent goodness of virtual screening results


As an extension to a previous published study (McGaughey et al., J Chem Inf Model 47:1504–1519, 2007) comparing 2D and 3D similarity methods to docking, we apply a subset of those virtual screening methods (TOPOSIM, SQW, ROCS-color, and Glide) to a set of protein/ligand pairs where the protein is the target for docking and the cocrystallized ligand is the target for the similarity methods. Each protein is represented by a maximum of five crystal structures. We search a diverse subset of the MDDR as well as a diverse small subset of the MCIDB, Merck’s proprietary database. It is seen that the relative effectiveness of virtual screening methods, as measured by the enrichment factor, is highly dependent on the particular crystal structure or ligand, and on the database being searched. 2D similarity methods appear very good for the MDDR, but poor for the MCIDB. However, ROCS-color (a 3D similarity method) does well for both databases.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6


  1. McGaughey GB, Sheridan RP, Bayly CI, Culberson JC, Kreatsoulas CK, Lindsley S, Maiorov V, Truchon J-F, Cornell WD (2007) Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 47:1504–1519

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Carhart RE, Smith DH, Venkataraghavan R (1985) Atom pairs as molecular features in structure-activity studies: definition and applications. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 25:64–73

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. MDL Drug Data Report licensed by Molecular Design Ltd., San Leandro, CA.

  4. McGann MR, Almond HR, Nicholls A, Grant JA, Brown FK (2003) Gaussian docking functions. Biopolymers 68:76–90

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hawkins PCD (2006) A comparison of structure-based and shape-based tools for virtual screening. Abstracts of Papers, 231st ACS National Meeting, Atlanta, GA, United States, March 26–30, 2006

  6. Halgren TA, Murphy RB, Friesner RA, Beard HS, Frye LL, Pollard WT, Banks JL (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J Med Chem 47:1750–1759

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, Halgren TA, Klicic JJ, Mainz DT, Repasky MP, Knoll EH, Shelley M, Perry JK, Shaw DE, Francis P, Shenkin PS (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 47:1739–1749

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nilakantan R, Bauman N, Dixon JS, Venkataraghavan R (1987) Topological torsion: a new molecular descriptor for SAR applications. Comparison with other descriptors. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 27:82–85

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kearsley SK, Sallamack S, Fluder EM, Andose JD, Mosley RT, Sheridan RP (1996) Chemical similarity using physiochemical property descriptors. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 36:118–127

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Miller MD, Sheridan RP, Kearsley SK (1999) SQ: a program for rapidly producing pharmacophorically relevant molecular superpositions. J Med Chem 42:1505–1514

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Edgar SJ, Holliday JD, Willett P (2000) Effectiveness of retrieval in similarity searches of chemical databases: a review of performance measures. J Mol Graph Model 18:343–357

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sheridan RP, Singh SB, Fluder EM, Kearsley SK (2001) Protocols for bridging the peptide to nonpeptide gap in topological similarity searches. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 41:1395–1406

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Triballeau N, Archer F, Brabet I, Pin J-P, Bertrand H-O (2005) Virtual screening workflow development guided by the ‘receiver operating characteristic’ curve approach. Application to high-throughput docking on metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 4. J Med Chem 48:2534–2547

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Seifert MHJ (2006) Assessing the discriminatory power of scoring functions for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 46:1456–1465

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Truchon J-F, Bayly CI (2007) Evaluating virtual screening methods: good and bad metrics for the early recognition problem. J Chem Inf Model 47:488–508

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sheridan RP Alternative global goodness metrics and sensitivity analysis: heuristics to check the robustness of conclusions from studies comparing virtual screening methods. J Chem Inf Model (in press)

  17. Kairys V, Fernandes MX, Gilson MK (2006) Screening drug-like compounds by docking to homology models: a systematic study. J Chem Inf Model 46:365–379

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Erickson JA, Jalaie M, Robertson DH, Lewis RA, Vieth M (2004) Lessons in molecular recognition: the effects of ligand and protein flexibility on molecular docking accuracy. J Med Chem 47:45–55

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Andersson CD, Thysell E, Lindstrom A, Bylesjo M, Raubacher F, Linusson A (2007) A multivariate approach to investigate docking parameters’ effects on docking performance. J Chem Inf Model 47:1673–1687

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. McGovern SL, Shoichet BK (2003) Information decay in molecular docking screens against holo, apo, and modeled conformations of enzymes. J Med Chem 46:2895–2907

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Muegge I, Enyedy IJ (2004) Virtual screening for kinase targets. Curr Med Chem 11:693–707

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors thank Christopher Bayly for useful discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert P. Sheridan.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(TXT 1 kb)

(TXT 348 kb)

(TXT 7 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sheridan, R.P., McGaughey, G.B. & Cornell, W.D. Multiple protein structures and multiple ligands: effects on the apparent goodness of virtual screening results. J Comput Aided Mol Des 22, 257–265 (2008).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • 2D similarity
  • 3D similarity
  • Docking
  • ROC
  • Glide
  • ROCS
  • SQ
  • SQW