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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Molecular docking is a powerful technique that helps uncover the structural and energetic bases of the interaction between macromolecules and substrates, endogenous and exogenous ligands, and inhibitors. Moreover, this technique plays a pivotal role in accelerating the screening of large libraries of compounds for drug development purposes. The need to promote community-driven drug development efforts, especially as far as neglected diseases are concerned, calls for user-friendly tools to allow non-expert users to exploit the full potential of molecular docking. Along this path, here is described the implementation of DockingApp, a freely available, extremely user-friendly, platform-independent application for performing docking simulations and virtual screening tasks using AutoDock Vina. DockingApp sports an intuitive graphical user interface which greatly facilitates both the input phase and the analysis of the results, which can be visualized in graphical form using the embedded JMol applet. The application comes with the DrugBank set of more than 1400 ready-to-dock, FDA-approved drugs, to facilitate virtual screening and drug repurposing initiatives. Furthermore, other databases of compounds such as ZINC, available also in AutoDock format, can be readily and easily plugged in.

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.

Background Computational approaches have emerged as an instrumental methodology in modern research. For example, virtual screening by molecular docking is routinely used in computer-aided drug discovery. One of the critical parameters for ligand docking is the size of a search space used to identify low-energy binding poses of drug candidates. Currently available docking packages often come with a default protocol for calculating the box size, however, many of these procedures have not been systematically evaluated. Methods In this study, we investigate how the docking accuracy of AutoDock Vina is affected by the selection of a search space. We propose a new procedure for calculating the optimal docking box size that maximizes the accuracy of binding pose prediction against a non-redundant and representative dataset of 3,659 protein-ligand complexes selected from the Protein Data Bank. Subsequently, we use the Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced to demonstrate that the optimized docking box size also yields an improved ranking in virtual screening. Binding pockets in both datasets are derived from the experimental complex structures and, additionally, predicted by e FindSite. Results A systematic analysis of ligand binding poses generated by AutoDock Vina shows that the highest accuracy is achieved when the dimensions of the search space are 2.9 times larger than the radius of gyration of a docking compound. Subsequent virtual screening benchmarks demonstrate that this optimized docking box size also improves compound ranking. For instance, using predicted ligand binding sites, the average enrichment factor calculated for the top 1 % (10 %) of the screening library is 8.20 (3.28) for the optimized protocol, compared to 7.67 (3.19) for the default procedure. Depending on the evaluation metric, the optimal docking box size gives better ranking in virtual screening for about two-thirds of target proteins. Conclusions This fully automated procedure can be used to optimize docking protocols in order to improve the ranking accuracy in production virtual screening simulations. Importantly, the optimized search space systematically yields better results than the default method not only for experimental pockets, but also for those predicted from protein structures. A script for calculating the optimal docking box size is freely available at www.brylinski.org/content/docking-box-size . Graphical Abstract We developed a procedure to optimize the box size in molecular docking calculations. Left panel shows the predicted binding pose of NADP (green sticks) compared to the experimental complex structure of human aldose reductase (blue sticks) using a default protocol. Right panel shows the docking accuracy using an optimized box size.

Endolysins of bacteriophages, which degrade the bacterial cell wall peptidoglycan, are applicable in many industries to deal with biofilms and bacterial infections. While multi-domain endolysins have both enzymatically active and cell wall-binding domains, single-domain endolysins consist only of an enzymatically active domain, and their mechanism of peptidoglycan binding remains unexplored, for this is a challenging task experimentally. This research aimed to explore the binding mechanism of endolysins using computational approaches, namely molecular docking and bioinformatical tools, and analyze the performance of these approaches. The docking engine Autodock Vina 1.1.2 and the 3D-RISM module of AmberTools 24 were studied in the current work and used for receptor–ligand affinity and binding energy calculations, respectively. Two possible mechanisms of single-domain endolysin–ligand binding were predicted by Autodock Vina and verified by the 3D-RISM. As a result, the previously obtained experimental results on peptidoglycan binding of the isolated gamma phage endolysin PlyG enzymatically active domain were supported by molecular docking. Both methods predicted that single-domain endolysins are able to bind peptidoglycan, with Autodock Vina being able to give accurate numerical estimates of protein–ligand affinities and 3D-RISM providing comparative values.