Evaluation of the Complementarity of Three Major Databases of Protein–Ligand Binding Affinity Data

IF 6.4 2区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL
Haotian Gao, Fengfei Miao, Xinchong Chen, Jingyuan Li, Kexin Wu, Yanbei Li, Yan Li, Yifei Qi, Zhen Duan, Renxiao Wang
{"title":"Evaluation of the Complementarity of Three Major Databases of Protein–Ligand Binding Affinity Data","authors":"Haotian Gao,&nbsp;Fengfei Miao,&nbsp;Xinchong Chen,&nbsp;Jingyuan Li,&nbsp;Kexin Wu,&nbsp;Yanbei Li,&nbsp;Yan Li,&nbsp;Yifei Qi,&nbsp;Zhen Duan,&nbsp;Renxiao Wang","doi":"10.1021/acs.jcim.6c02172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Protein–ligand binding affinity data underpin\r\na variety\r\nof tasks at the early stage of drug discovery. Public databases including\r\nChEMBL, BindingDB, and PDBbind curate such data with distinct focuses,\r\nyet their data overlap and complementary attributes remain insufficiently\r\nquantified. In this work, we systematically cross-mapped protein–ligand\r\nbinding data in PDBbind (version 2024) against data records sourced\r\nfrom ChEMBL (version 35) and BindingDB (version 2025.08). Our analysis\r\nrevealed that merely 22.1% and 23.9% of PDBbind’s annotated\r\nprotein–ligand complexes possess matching binding data records\r\nin ChEMBL and BindingDB, respectively, confirming that the PDBbind\r\ndataset is not a subset of the other two larger repositories. This\r\nlimited overlap arises from fundamental differences in scope: ChEMBL\r\nand BindingDB center on drug discovery datasets, whereas the data\r\nentries in PDBbind encompass a broader chemical and biological landscape.\r\nOur analysis further uncovered substantial data redundancy in ChEMBL\r\nand BindingDB, where 40%–50% of protein–ligand interaction\r\npairs are associated with multiple, discrepant binding affinity values.\r\nCurrently, no single resource achieves a comprehensive coverage of\r\navailable protein–ligand binding data, mandating researchers\r\nto adopt resource-selection strategies customized to their goals.\r\nWhile ChEMBL and BindingDB host extensive bioactivity archives, PDBbind\r\ndirectly links three-dimensional complex structures with carefully\r\ncurated binding affinity data. This unique value makes it best suited\r\nfor structure-based studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":44,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling ","volume":"66 19","pages":"12604–12612"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling ","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.6c02172","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Protein–ligand binding affinity data underpin a variety of tasks at the early stage of drug discovery. Public databases including ChEMBL, BindingDB, and PDBbind curate such data with distinct focuses, yet their data overlap and complementary attributes remain insufficiently quantified. In this work, we systematically cross-mapped protein–ligand binding data in PDBbind (version 2024) against data records sourced from ChEMBL (version 35) and BindingDB (version 2025.08). Our analysis revealed that merely 22.1% and 23.9% of PDBbind’s annotated protein–ligand complexes possess matching binding data records in ChEMBL and BindingDB, respectively, confirming that the PDBbind dataset is not a subset of the other two larger repositories. This limited overlap arises from fundamental differences in scope: ChEMBL and BindingDB center on drug discovery datasets, whereas the data entries in PDBbind encompass a broader chemical and biological landscape. Our analysis further uncovered substantial data redundancy in ChEMBL and BindingDB, where 40%–50% of protein–ligand interaction pairs are associated with multiple, discrepant binding affinity values. Currently, no single resource achieves a comprehensive coverage of available protein–ligand binding data, mandating researchers to adopt resource-selection strategies customized to their goals. While ChEMBL and BindingDB host extensive bioactivity archives, PDBbind directly links three-dimensional complex structures with carefully curated binding affinity data. This unique value makes it best suited for structure-based studies.

蛋白质-配体结合亲和数据三个主要数据库的互补性评价
在药物发现的早期阶段,蛋白质-配体结合亲和性数据是多种任务的基础。包括ChEMBL、BindingDB和pdbind在内的公共数据库以不同的重点管理这些数据,但它们的数据重叠和互补属性仍然没有充分量化。在这项工作中,我们系统地将PDBbind(版本2024)中的蛋白质配体结合数据与来自ChEMBL(版本35)和BindingDB(版本2025.08)的数据记录进行交叉映射。我们的分析显示,分别只有22.1%和23.9%的PDBbind注释蛋白配体复合物在ChEMBL和BindingDB中具有匹配的结合数据记录,证实PDBbind数据集不是其他两个较大数据库的子集。这种有限的重叠源于范围的根本差异:ChEMBL和BindingDB以药物发现数据集为中心,而PDBbind的数据条目涵盖更广泛的化学和生物学领域。我们的分析进一步揭示了ChEMBL和BindingDB中大量的数据冗余,其中40%-50%的蛋白质-配体相互作用对与多个不同的结合亲和力值相关。目前,没有一个单一的资源能够全面覆盖现有的蛋白质-配体结合数据,这就要求研究人员采用针对其目标定制的资源选择策略。ChEMBL和BindingDB拥有广泛的生物活性档案,而pdbinding直接将三维复杂结构与精心策划的结合亲和力数据联系起来。这种独特的价值使其最适合于基于结构的研究。
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
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
529
审稿时长
1.4 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling publishes papers reporting new methodology and/or important applications in the fields of chemical informatics and molecular modeling. Specific topics include the representation and computer-based searching of chemical databases, molecular modeling, computer-aided molecular design of new materials, catalysts, or ligands, development of new computational methods or efficient algorithms for chemical software, and biopharmaceutical chemistry including analyses of biological activity and other issues related to drug discovery. Astute chemists, computer scientists, and information specialists look to this monthly’s insightful research studies, programming innovations, and software reviews to keep current with advances in this integral, multidisciplinary field. As a subscriber you’ll stay abreast of database search systems, use of graph theory in chemical problems, substructure search systems, pattern recognition and clustering, analysis of chemical and physical data, molecular modeling, graphics and natural language interfaces, bibliometric and citation analysis, and synthesis design and reactions databases.
×
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