. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Nov 9.

Published in final edited form as: J Chem Inf Model. 2011 Oct 7;51(10):2528–2537. doi: 10.1021/ci200220v

Table 5.

Success rates of binding site prediction by different scoring functions^a

	success rate (%) for different rmsd criteria
scoring function	≦1Å	≦1.5Å	≦2Å	≦2.5Å	≦3Å
DrugScore^CSD	83	85	87
AutoDock4^RAP	83	85	87	87	87
AutoDock4^RGG	80	82	86	86	86
AutoDock4^RRP	79	81	84	85	85
original AutoDock4^GG	74	76	79	79	79
Cerius2/PLP	63	69	76	79	80
SYBYL/F-Score	56	66	74	77	77
Cerius2/LigScore	64	68	74	75	76
DrugScore	63	68	72	74	74
Cerius2/LUDI	43	55	67	67	67
X-Score	37	54	66	72	74
AutoDock3	34	52	62	68	72
Cerius2/PMF	40	46	52	54	57
SYBYL/G-Score	24	32	42	49	56
SYBYL/ChemScore	12	26	35	37	40
SYBYL/D-Score	8	16	26	30	41

Except for the results of the AutoDock4 scoring functions, the results of DrugScore^CSD and other scoring functions were taken from Velec et al.²⁶ and Wang et al.,²⁵ respectively.

Scoring functions are sorted by the number of cases under 2Å.