19.02.2013 Views

Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18

Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18

Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

68 The Use of Scor<strong>in</strong>g Functions <strong>in</strong> Drug Discovery Applications<br />

Figure 6 Dock<strong>in</strong>g estrogen receptor agonists and antagonists <strong>in</strong>to two crystal structures<br />

of the estrogen receptor, the agonist-bound conformation and the antagonist-bound<br />

conformation. Scores for both dock<strong>in</strong>g results are plotted aga<strong>in</strong>st each other.<br />

Compounds 1 and 2 are examples of agonists, compounds 3 and 4 are typical<br />

antagonists.<br />

the surface-exposed salt bridge formed with Glu 351 to the total score the<br />

antagonists are clearly separated from the WDI compounds, whereas the<br />

agonists are ranked among the bulk of the WDI entries <strong>in</strong> the antagonist structure.<br />

In the agonist form, the formation of a salt bridge is not possible, result<strong>in</strong>g<br />

<strong>in</strong> a lower average score for all molecules. Almost the same result as<br />

with the FlexX score is obta<strong>in</strong>ed with the ChemScore function 71,199 by<br />

Protherics. 201 The new DrugScore function 92 performs better <strong>in</strong> this situation.<br />

Us<strong>in</strong>g this scor<strong>in</strong>g function, results shown <strong>in</strong> Figure 6(b) are obta<strong>in</strong>ed. Not<br />

only are the agonists significantly better separated from the WDI subset

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!