SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Performance of Force-Field- and Machine Learning-Based Scoring Functions in Ranking MAO-B Protein-Inhibitor Complexes in Relevance to Developing Parkinson's Therapeutics.

Int J Mol Sci · 2020-10-16

DOI: 10.3390/ijms21207648PMID: 33081086

Open accessComparative Study; research-article; Evaluation Study; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Monoamine oxidase B (MAOB) is expressed in the mitochondrial membrane and has a key role in degrading various neurologically active amines such as benzylamine, phenethylamine and dopamine with the help of Flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) cofactor. The Parkinson's disease associated symptoms can be treated using inhibitors of MAO-B as the dopamine degradation can be reduced. Currently, many inhibitors are available having micromolar to nanomolar binding affinities. However, still there is demand for compounds with superior binding affinity and binding specificity with favorable pharmacokinetic properties for treating Parkinson's disease and computational screening methods can be majorly recruited for this. However, the accuracy of currently available force-field methods for ranking the inhibitors or lead drug-like compounds should be improved and novel methods for screening compounds need to be developed. We studied the performance of various force-field-based methods and data driven approaches in ranking about 3753 compounds having activity against the MAO-B target. The binding affinities computed using autodock and autodock-vina are shown to be non-reliable. The force-field-based MM-GBSA also under-performs. However, certain machine learning approaches, in particular KNN, are found to be superior, and we propose KNN as the most reliable approach for ranking the complexes to reasonable accuracy. Furthermore, all the employed machine learning approaches are also computationally less demanding.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.