{"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.