Speed vs Accuracy: Effect on Ligand Pose Accuracy of Varying Box Size and Exhaustiveness in AutoDock Vina. Issue 2 (11th November 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Agarwal, Rupesh; Smith, Jeremy C.
• Is Part Of: Molecular informatics. Volume 42:Issue 2(2023)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-11-11
• Subjects: Virtual screening -- Molecular docking -- exhaustiveness -- Vina; Cheminformatics -- Periodicals; QSAR (Biochemistry) -- Periodicals; Structure-activity relationships (Biochemistry) -- Periodicals; Drugs -- Structure-activity relationships -- Periodicals; 615.19
• DOI: 10.1002/minf.202200188
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1868-1743

Abstract

Abstract: Structure‐based virtual high‐throughput screening involves docking chemical libraries to targets of interest. A parameter pertinent to the accuracy of the resulting pose is the root mean square deviation (RMSD) from a known crystallographic structure, i. e., the 'docking power'. Here, using a popular algorithm, Autodock Vina, as a model program, we evaluate the effects of varying two common docking parameters: the box size (the size of docking search space) and the exhaustiveness of the global search (the number of independent runs starting from random ligand conformations) on the RMSD from the PDBbind v2017 refined dataset of experimental protein‐ligand complexes. Although it is clear that exhaustiveness is an important parameter, there is wide variation in the values used, with variation between 1 and >100. We, therefore, evaluated a combination of cubic boxes of different sizes and five exhaustiveness values (1, 8, 25, 50, 75, 100) within the range of those commonly adopted. The results show that the default exhaustiveness value of 8 performs well overall for most box sizes. In contrast, for all box sizes, but particularly for large boxes, an exhaustiveness value of 1 led to significantly higher median RMSD (mRMSD) values. The docking power was slightly improved with an exhaustiveness of 25, but the mRMSD changes little with values higher than 25. Therefore, although low exhaustiveness is computationally faster, the results are more likely to be far from reality, and, conversely, values >25 led to little improvement at the expense of computational resources. Overall, we recommend users to use at least the default exhaustiveness value of 8 for virtual screening calculations. Abstract :