Faculty of Chemistry, Jagiellonian University, 3 Ingardena Street, 30-060 Krakow, Poland.
J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2011 Feb;25(2):117-33. doi: 10.1007/s10822-010-9402-0. Epub 2010 Nov 21.
The comparison of eight tools applicable to ligand-binding site prediction is presented. The methods examined cover three types of approaches: the geometrical (CASTp, PASS, Pocket-Finder), the physicochemical (Q-SiteFinder, FOD) and the knowledge-based (ConSurf, SuMo, WebFEATURE). The accuracy of predictions was measured in reference to the catalytic residues documented in the Catalytic Site Atlas. The test was performed on a set comprising selected chains of hydrolases. The results were analysed with regard to size, polarity, secondary structure, accessible solvent area of predicted sites as well as parameters commonly used in machine learning (F-measure, MCC). The relative accuracies of predictions are presented in the ROC space, allowing determination of the optimal methods by means of the ROC convex hull. Additionally the minimum expected cost analysis was performed. Both advantages and disadvantages of the eight methods are presented. Characterization of protein chains in respect to the level of difficulty in the active site prediction is introduced. The main reasons for failures are discussed. Overall, the best performance offers SuMo followed by FOD, while Pocket-Finder is the best method among the geometrical approaches.
呈现了适用于配体结合位点预测的八种工具的比较。所检查的方法涵盖了三种类型的方法:几何形状(CASTp、PASS、Pocket-Finder)、物理化学(Q-SiteFinder、FOD)和基于知识(ConSurf、SuMo、WebFEATURE)。预测的准确性是根据 Catalytic Site Atlas 中记录的催化残基来衡量的。该测试是在一组包含选定水解酶链的基础上进行的。结果是针对预测位点的大小、极性、二级结构、可及溶剂面积以及机器学习中常用的参数(F 度量、MCC)进行分析的。相对预测精度在 ROC 空间中呈现,允许通过 ROC 凸包来确定最佳方法。此外,还进行了最小预期成本分析。介绍了蛋白质链在活性位点预测难度方面的特点。讨论了失败的主要原因。总体而言,SuMo 的性能最好,其次是 FOD,而 Pocket-Finder 是几何方法中最好的方法。