Skip to main content

Table 12 Mean Δ EF values and standard deviations for the ECFP and ECFP ext similarity methods (approach B2)

From: Improving structural similarity based virtual screening using background knowledge

 

ECFP

ECFP ext

DuD set

1%

5%

10%

1%

5%

10%

HMGR

8.7 ± 9.4

6.8 ± 8.5

4.2 ± 5.6

4.3 ± 9.5

6.5 ± 4.8

2.9 ± 2.6

ER

8.0 ± 4.0

7.4 ± 3.9

6.7 ± 4.6

6.8 ± 7.8

9.6 ± 2.5

4.4 ± 1.4

PPAR γ

1.3 ± 0.7

7.1 ± 11.2

1.0 ± 0.7

4.2 ± 11.0

3.6 ± 5.6

1.8 ± 2.8

P38 MAP

7.0 ± 5.9

5.9 ± 3.0

3.4 ± 2.0

4.0 ± 6.0

7.0 ± 3.6

3.0 ± 1.9

TK

9.8 ± 6.0

12.1 ± 8.9

10.9 ± 6.4

18.8 ± 7.3

11.8 ± 3.8

4.9 ± 2.0

FXa

7.4 ± 11.3

2.4 ± 2.0

1.7 ± 1.5

3.5 ± 11.2

4.5 ± 5.3

2.0 ± 2.7

ADA

6.3 ± 3.3

6.4 ± 4.5

8.9 ± 6.0

8.3 ± 7.1

9.3 ± 2.0

4.4 ± 1.1

DHFR

2.5 ± 2.0

1.8 ± 1.5

1.8 ± 1.5

5.7 ± 5.5

0.5 ± 0.8

0.0 ± 0.0

AChE

15.0 ± 11.2

5.2 ± 2.3

6.8 ± 3.8

12.2 ± 12.7

10.0 ± 5.4

4.6 ±2.9

COX-2

8.7 ± 10.6

3.4 ± 1.9

3.4 ± 2.5

6.8 ± 10.2

5.4 ± 4.9

2.0 ± 2.7

w/d/l

 

6 / 0 / 4

4 / 0 / 6

8 / 0 / 2

  1. Mean Δ EF and standard deviations for the ECFP and ECFP ext similarity methods at 1%, 5% and 10% of the database (receptor specific decoy set DuD set ). The extension fingerprint is calculated from 10% (20% for HMGR, TK and ADA) of the ligands (approach B2). Improvements of ECFP ext compared to ECFP are marked with bold print. w/d/l = wins/draws/losses.