Explore the vast range of titles available.

AutoDock Vina is one of the most popular molecular docking tools. In the latest benchmark CASF-2016 for comparative assessment of scoring functions, AutoDock Vina won the best docking power among all the docking tools. Modern drug discovery is facing a common scenario of large virtual screening of drug hits from huge compound databases. Due to the seriality characteristic of the AutoDock Vina algorithm, there is no successful report on its parallel acceleration with GPUs. Current acceleration of AutoDock Vina typically relies on the stack of computing power as well as the allocation of resource and tasks, such as the VirtualFlow platform. The vast resource expenditure and the high access threshold of users will greatly limit the popularity of AutoDock Vina and the flexibility of its usage in modern drug discovery. In this work, we proposed a new method, Vina-GPU, for accelerating AutoDock Vina with GPUs, which is greatly needed for reducing the investment for large virtual screens and also for wider application in large-scale virtual screening on personal computers, station servers or cloud computing, etc. Our proposed method is based on a modified Monte Carlo using simulating annealing AI algorithm. It greatly raises the number of initial random conformations and reduces the search depth of each thread. Moreover, a classic optimizer named BFGS is adopted to optimize the ligand conformations during the docking progress, before a heterogeneous OpenCL implementation was developed to realize its parallel acceleration leveraging thousands of GPU cores. Large benchmark tests show that Vina-GPU reaches an average of 21-fold and a maximum of 50-fold docking acceleration against the original AutoDock Vina while ensuring their comparable docking accuracy, indicating its potential for pushing the popularization of AutoDock Vina in large virtual screens.

AutoDock and Vina are two of the most widely used protein–ligand docking programs. The fact that these programs are free and available under an open source license, also makes them a very popular first choice for many users and a common starting point for many virtual screening campaigns, particularly in academia. Here, we evaluated the performance of AutoDock and Vina against an unbiased dataset containing 102 protein targets, 22,432 active compounds and 1,380,513 decoy molecules. In general, the results showed that the overall performance of Vina and AutoDock was comparable in discriminating between actives and decoys. However, the results varied significantly with the type of target. AutoDock was better in discriminating ligands and decoys in more hydrophobic, poorly polar and poorly charged pockets, while Vina tended to give better results for polar and charged binding pockets. For the type of ligand, the tendency was the same for both Vina and AutoDock. Bigger and more flexible ligands still presented a bigger challenge for these docking programs. A set of guidelines was formulated, based on the strengths and weaknesses of both docking program and their limits of validation.

Molecular docking is the most frequently used computational method for studying the interactions between organic molecules and biological macromolecules. In this context, docking allows predicting the preferred pose of a ligand inside a receptor binding site. However, the selection of the “best” solution is not a trivial task, despite the widely accepted selection criterion that the best pose corresponds to the best energy score. Here, several rigid-target docking methods were evaluated on the same dataset with respect to their ability to reproduce crystallographic binding orientations, to test if the best energy score is a reliable criterion for selecting the best solution. For this, two experiments were performed: (A) to reconstruct the ligand-receptor complex by performing docking of the ligand in its own crystal structure receptor (defined as self-docking), and (B) to reconstruct the ligand-receptor complex by performing docking of the ligand in a crystal structure receptor that contains other ligand (defined as cross-docking). Root-mean square deviation (RMSD) was used to evaluate how different the obtained docking orientation is from the corresponding co-crystallized pose of the same ligand molecule. We found that docking score function is capable of predicting crystallographic binding orientations, but the best ranked solution according to the docking energy is not always the pose that reproduces the experimental binding orientation. This happened when self-docking was achieved, but it was critical in cross-docking. Taking into account that docking is typically used with predictive purposes, during cross-docking experiments, our results indicate that the best energy score is not a reliable criterion to select the best solution in common docking applications. It is strongly recommended to choose the best docking solution according to the scoring function along with additional structural criteria described for analogue ligands to assure the selection of a correct docking solution.

AMDock (Assisted Molecular Docking) is a user-friendly graphical tool to assist in the docking of protein-ligand complexes using Autodock Vina and AutoDock4, including the option of using the Autodock4Zn force field for metalloproteins. AMDock integrates several external programs (Open Babel, PDB2PQR, AutoLigand, ADT scripts) to accurately prepare the input structure files and to optimally define the search space, offering several alternatives and different degrees of user supervision. For visualization of molecular structures, AMDock uses PyMOL, starting it automatically with several predefined visualization schemes to aid in setting up the box defining the search space and to visualize and analyze the docking results. One particularly useful feature implemented in AMDock is the off-target docking procedure that allows to conduct ligand selectivity studies easily. In summary, AMDock’s functional versatility makes it a very useful tool to conduct different docking studies, especially for beginners. The program is available, either for Windows or Linux, at https://github.com/Valdes-Tresanco-MS . Reviewers This article was reviewed by Alexander Krah and Thomas Gaillard.

Virtual screening of large chemical libraries is essential to support computer-aided drug development, providing a rapid and low-cost approach for further experimental validation. However, existing computational packages are often for specialised users or platform limited. Previously, we developed VSpipe, an open-source semi-automated pipeline for structure-based virtual screening. We have now improved and expanded the initial command-line version into an interactive graphical user interface: VSpipe-GUI, a cross-platform open-source Python toolkit functional in various operating systems (e.g., Linux distributions, Windows, and Mac OS X). The new implementation is more user-friendly and accessible, and considerably faster than the previous version when AutoDock Vina is used for docking. Importantly, we have introduced a new compound selection module (i.e., spatial filtering) that allows filtering of docked compounds based on specified features at the target binding site. We have tested the new VSpipe-GUI on the Hepatitis C Virus NS3 (HCV NS3) protease as the target protein. The pocket-based and interaction-based modes of the spatial filtering module showed efficient and specific selection of ligands from the virtual screening that interact with the HCV NS3 catalytic serine 139.

The accuracy of five docking programs at reproducing crystallographic structures of complexes of 8 macrolides and 12 related macrocyclic structures, all with their corresponding receptors, was evaluated. Self-docking calculations indicated excellent performance in all cases (mean RMSD values ≤ 1.0) and confirmed the speed of AutoDock Vina. Afterwards, the lowest-energy conformer of each molecule and all the conformers lying 0–10 kcal/mol above it (as given by Macrocycle, from MacroModel 10.0) were subjected to standard docking calculations. While each docking method has its own merits, the observed speed of the programs was as follows: Glide 6.6 > AutoDock Vina 1.1.2 > DOCK 6.5 >> AutoDock 4.2.6 > AutoDock 3.0.5. For most of the complexes, the five methods predicted quite correct poses of ligands at the binding sites, but the lower RMSD values for the poses of highest affinity were in the order: Glide 6.6 ≈ AutoDock Vina ≈ DOCK 6.5 > AutoDock 4.2.6 >> AutoDock 3.0.5. By choosing the poses closest to the crystal structure the order was: AutoDock Vina > Glide 6.6 ≈ DOCK 6.5 ≥ AutoDock 4.2.6 >> AutoDock 3.0.5. Re-scoring (AutoDock 4.2.6//AutoDock Vina, Amber Score and MM-GBSA) improved the agreement between the calculated and experimental data. For all intents and purposes, these three methods are equally reliable.

Docking of small molecule compounds into the binding site of a receptor and estimating the binding affinity of the complex is an important part of the structure-based drug design process. For a thorough understanding of the structural principles that determine the strength of a protein/ligand complex both, an accurate and fast docking protocol and the ability to visualize binding geometries and interactions are mandatory. Here we present an interface between the popular molecular graphics system PyMOL and the molecular docking suites Autodock and Vina and demonstrate how the combination of docking and visualization can aid structure-based drug design efforts.

Drug discovery is an intricate and resource-intensive process in which computational approaches, such as molecular docking, are essential, particularly in the early stages, to identify potential hits. However, docking still has many drawbacks, including problems in managing protein flexibility and the reliability of scoring functions. In this paper, we systematically compared the performance of AutoDock Vina, one of the most widely used open-source docking tools, with GNINA. This advanced evolution integrates convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for pose scoring. The comparison was conducted on ten heterogeneous protein targets, including metalloenzymes, kinases, and G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). With the ability to accurately replicate binding poses and their energy values, GNINA showed outstanding performance in both virtual screening (VS) of active ligands and re-docking steps of co-crystallized ligands. GNINA’s enhanced ability to accurately distinguish between true positives and false positives—a specificity not found with AutoDock Vina—is confirmed by ROC curves and Enrichment Factor (EF) results. Therefore, we propose an integrated GNINA-based workflow that can significantly enhance the quality and reliability of docking results, providing a valuable tool for optimizing the initial stages of drug discovery.

Large-scale computing technologies have enabled high-throughput virtual screening involving thousands to millions of drug candidates. It is not trivial, however, for biochemical scientists to evaluate the technical alternatives and their implications for running such large experiments. Besides experience with the molecular docking tool itself, the scientist needs to learn how to run it on high-performance computing (HPC) infrastructures, and understand the impact of the choices made. Here, we review such considerations for a specific tool, AutoDock Vina, and use experimental data to illustrate the following points: (1) an additional level of parallelization increases virtual screening throughput on a multi-core machine; (2) capturing of the random seed is not enough (though necessary) for reproducibility on heterogeneous distributed computing systems; (3) the overall time spent on the screening of a ligand library can be improved by analysis of factors affecting execution time per ligand, including number of active torsions, heavy atoms and exhaustiveness. We also illustrate differences among four common HPC infrastructures: grid, Hadoop, small cluster and multi-core (virtual machine on the cloud). Our analysis shows that these platforms are suitable for screening experiments of different sizes. These considerations can guide scientists when choosing the best computing platform and set-up for their future large virtual screening experiments.

Lifestyles, genetic predispositions, environmental factors, and geographical regions are considered key factors of heavy metals initiatives related to health issues. Heavy metals enter the body via the environment, daily lifestyle, foods, beverages, cosmetics, and other products. The accumulation of heavy metals in the human body leads to neurological issues, carcinogenesis, failure of multiple organs in the body, and a reduction in sensitivity to treatment. We screened for Cr, Al, Pb, and Cd in selected foods, beverages, and cosmetics products depending on questionnaire outcomes from female volunteers. We also screened for Cr, Al, Pb, and Cd on hair, nails, and serum samples using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) from the same volunteers, and we analyzed the serum cholinesterase and complete blood picture (CBC). We performed an AutoDock study on Cr, Al, Pb, and Cd as potential ligands. Our results indicate that the most elevated heavy metal in the cosmetic sample was Al. In addition, in the food and beverages samples, it was Pb and Al, respectively. The results of the questionnaire showed that 71 percent of the female volunteers used the studied cosmetics, food, and beverages, which were contaminated with Cr, Al, Pb, and Cd, reflecting the high concentration of Cr, Al, Cd, and Pb in the three different types of biological samples of sera, nails, and hair of the same females, with 29 percent of the female volunteers not using the products in the studied samples. Our results also show an elevated level of cholinesterase in the serum of group 1 that was greater than group 2, and this result was confirmed by AutoDock. Moreover, the negative variation in the CBC result was compared with the reference ranges. Future studies should concentrate on the actions of these heavy metal contaminations and their potential health consequences for various human organs individually.