Next Article in Journal
Novel 3-Methyl-1,6-Diazaphenothiazine as an Anticancer Agent—Synthesis, Structure, and In Vitro Anticancer Evaluation
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Recognition and Modification Strategies of Umami Dipeptides with T1R1/T1R3 Receptors
Previous Article in Special Issue
Generation of Rational Drug-like Molecular Structures Through a Multiple-Objective Reinforcement Learning Framework
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Pairwise Performance Comparison of Docking Scoring Functions: Computational Approach Using InterCriteria Analysis

Institute of Biophysics and Biomedical Engineering, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 105 Acad. G. Bonchev Str., 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2025, 30(13), 2777; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30132777 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 22 May 2025 / Revised: 13 June 2025 / Accepted: 25 June 2025 / Published: 27 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Computational Approaches in Drug Discovery and Design)

Abstract

Scoring functions are key elements in docking protocols as they approximate the binding affinity of a ligand (usually a small bioactive molecule) by calculating its interaction energy with a biomacromolecule (usually a protein). In this study, we present a pairwise comparison of scoring functions applying a multi-criterion decision-making approach based on InterCriteria analysis (ICrA). As criteria, the five scoring functions implemented in MOE (Molecular Operating Environment) software were selected, and their performance on a set of protein–ligand complexes from the PDBbind database was compared. The following docking outputs were used: the best docking score, the lowest root mean square deviation (RMSD) between the predicted poses and the co-crystallized ligand, the RMSD between the best docking score pose and the co-crystallized ligand, and the docking score of the pose with the lowest RMSD to the co-crystallized ligand. The impact of ICrA thresholds on the relations between the scoring functions was investigated. A correlation analysis was also performed and juxtaposed with the ICrA. Our results reveal the lowest RMSD as the best-performing docking output and two scoring functions (Alpha HB and London dG) as having the highest comparability. The proposed approach can be applied to any other scoring functions and protein–ligand complexes of interest.
Keywords: molecular operating environment; scoring functions; molecular docking; InterCriteria analysis molecular operating environment; scoring functions; molecular docking; InterCriteria analysis

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Angelova, M.; Alov, P.; Tsakovska, I.; Jereva, D.; Lessigiarska, I.; Atanassov, K.; Pajeva, I.; Pencheva, T. Pairwise Performance Comparison of Docking Scoring Functions: Computational Approach Using InterCriteria Analysis. Molecules 2025, 30, 2777. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30132777

AMA Style

Angelova M, Alov P, Tsakovska I, Jereva D, Lessigiarska I, Atanassov K, Pajeva I, Pencheva T. Pairwise Performance Comparison of Docking Scoring Functions: Computational Approach Using InterCriteria Analysis. Molecules. 2025; 30(13):2777. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30132777

Chicago/Turabian Style

Angelova, Maria, Petko Alov, Ivanka Tsakovska, Dessislava Jereva, Iglika Lessigiarska, Krassimir Atanassov, Ilza Pajeva, and Tania Pencheva. 2025. "Pairwise Performance Comparison of Docking Scoring Functions: Computational Approach Using InterCriteria Analysis" Molecules 30, no. 13: 2777. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30132777

APA Style

Angelova, M., Alov, P., Tsakovska, I., Jereva, D., Lessigiarska, I., Atanassov, K., Pajeva, I., & Pencheva, T. (2025). Pairwise Performance Comparison of Docking Scoring Functions: Computational Approach Using InterCriteria Analysis. Molecules, 30(13), 2777. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30132777

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop