Can docking-score differences support 5-HT2A/5-HT2B subtype-selectivity decisions? An audited paired benchmark.

In silico pharmacology Pub Date : 2026-09-06 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1007/s40203-026-00745-x
Sen Ye
{"title":"Can docking-score differences support 5-HT2A/5-HT2B subtype-selectivity decisions? An audited paired benchmark.","authors":"Sen Ye","doi":"10.1007/s40203-026-00745-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Subtype selectivity is a paired drug-design property, and some structure-based studies infer it from score comparisons across receptors without directly validating the score difference against paired experimental selectivity. We evaluated Vina-family docking-score differences in an audited 5-HT2A/5-HT2B benchmark comprising 419 same-endpoint paired activity records, 413 unique compounds, and 411 docking-complete compounds across two structures per subtype. Experimental selectivity was ΔpX = pX(5-HT2A) - pX(5-HT2B), and docking selectivity was Δscore = mean score(5-HT2B) - mean score(5-HT2A), so positive values favored 5-HT2A. Vina Δscore gave Pearson <i>r</i> = 0.097 (95% confidence interval 0.020 to 0.173) and Spearman ρ = 0.057 (95% confidence interval - 0.039 to 0.151); both intervals lay below the predefined |r| = 0.20 practical threshold. Strong-selectivity discrimination gave an area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve of 0.544 (95% confidence interval 0.427 to 0.664). The continuous association weakened with alternative scoring and disappeared after full Vinardo redocking. Under scaffold cross-validation, descriptor-plus-docking was indistinguishable from its ligand-only baseline. Fingerprint-plus-docking reduced error by 0.037 pX (ΔRMSE = - 0.037, 95% confidence interval - 0.051 to - 0.023); the point estimate was below the 0.05 pX practical threshold, although the interval narrowly reached it. Within this fixed, ligand-context-asymmetric, non-transducer-bound four-structure benchmark, Vina-family score-level features provide hypothesis-generating evidence rather than convincing stand-alone support for 5-HT2A/5-HT2B selectivity decisions.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40203-026-00745-x.</p>","PeriodicalId":94038,"journal":{"name":"In silico pharmacology","volume":"14 3","pages":"230"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13547201/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"In silico pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40203-026-00745-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Subtype selectivity is a paired drug-design property, and some structure-based studies infer it from score comparisons across receptors without directly validating the score difference against paired experimental selectivity. We evaluated Vina-family docking-score differences in an audited 5-HT2A/5-HT2B benchmark comprising 419 same-endpoint paired activity records, 413 unique compounds, and 411 docking-complete compounds across two structures per subtype. Experimental selectivity was ΔpX = pX(5-HT2A) - pX(5-HT2B), and docking selectivity was Δscore = mean score(5-HT2B) - mean score(5-HT2A), so positive values favored 5-HT2A. Vina Δscore gave Pearson r = 0.097 (95% confidence interval 0.020 to 0.173) and Spearman ρ = 0.057 (95% confidence interval - 0.039 to 0.151); both intervals lay below the predefined |r| = 0.20 practical threshold. Strong-selectivity discrimination gave an area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve of 0.544 (95% confidence interval 0.427 to 0.664). The continuous association weakened with alternative scoring and disappeared after full Vinardo redocking. Under scaffold cross-validation, descriptor-plus-docking was indistinguishable from its ligand-only baseline. Fingerprint-plus-docking reduced error by 0.037 pX (ΔRMSE = - 0.037, 95% confidence interval - 0.051 to - 0.023); the point estimate was below the 0.05 pX practical threshold, although the interval narrowly reached it. Within this fixed, ligand-context-asymmetric, non-transducer-bound four-structure benchmark, Vina-family score-level features provide hypothesis-generating evidence rather than convincing stand-alone support for 5-HT2A/5-HT2B selectivity decisions.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40203-026-00745-x.

对接评分差异是否支持5-HT2A/5-HT2B亚型选择性决策?经过审计的配对基准。
亚型选择性是一种配对药物设计特性,一些基于结构的研究从不同受体的评分比较中推断出它,而没有直接验证配对实验选择性的评分差异。我们在审计的5-HT2A/5-HT2B基准中评估了vina家族对接评分的差异,该基准包括419个相同端点配对活性记录,413个独特化合物和411个跨每个亚型两种结构的对接完成化合物。实验选择性为ΔpX = pX(5-HT2A) - pX(5-HT2B),对接选择性为Δscore =平均分(5-HT2B) -平均分(5-HT2A),因此正值偏向5-HT2A。Vina Δscore给出Pearson r = 0.097(95%可信区间为0.020 ~ 0.173)和Spearman ρ = 0.057(95%可信区间为0.039 ~ 0.151);两个区间都低于预定义的|r| = 0.20的实际阈值。强选择性判别的受者-工作特征曲线下面积为0.544(95%置信区间为0.427 ~ 0.664)。连续关联随着替代记分而减弱,并在完全Vinardo重新对接后消失。在支架交叉验证下,描述符加对接与仅配体基线无法区分。指纹加对接将误差降低了0.037 pX (ΔRMSE = - 0.037, 95%置信区间- 0.051至- 0.023);点估计低于0.05 pX的实际阈值,尽管间隔勉强达到。在这个固定的、配体-环境不对称的、非传感器绑定的四结构基准中,vina家族的评分水平特征提供了假设生成证据,而不是令人信服的5-HT2A/5-HT2B选择性决策的独立支持。补充信息:在线版本包含补充资料,可在https://doi.org/10.1007/s40203-026-00745-x上获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书