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, Fengfei Miao, Xinchong Chen, Jingyuan Li, Kexin Wu, Yanbei Li, Yan Li, Yifei Qi, Zhen Duan, 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.
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.