Future-proofing Cybersecurity in Drug Discovery
The pharmaceutical and biotech sectors suffer more data security breaches than any other industry, with 53% resulting from malicious activity. To protect against potential ...
News
There are many methods available to align ligands in 3D in the absence of protein information. However, they fall into three main classes: atom matching/pharmacophore-based methods (GALAHAD, Open3DALIGN, Align-it), shape/electrostatics-based methods (Cresset, ROCS, Phase Shape, ShaEP) and QM potential-derived methods (CosmoSim3D). Each of these methods has different strengths and weaknesses. We have tested representatives of each class of alignment method on the recently-published AZ data set (Giangreco et al., J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013, 53(4), 852-866) and the PharmBench data set (Cross et al., J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52(10), 2599-2608) in order to get a better understanding of what types of ligands are best aligned by each class. We demonstrate significant problems with alignment success criteria published in the literature, and suggest a robust alternative leveraging the large amounts of data available in these new validation suites.