Skip to main content
. 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 6.

Success rates of binding pose prediction of various scoring functionsa on three classes of complexes

success rate (%; rmsd ≦2Å)
Overall hydrophilic mixed hydrophobic
scoring function (100) (44) (32) (24)
AutoDock4RAP 87 89 91 79
AutoDock4RGG 86 86 91 79
AutoDock4RRP 84 84 91 75
original AutoDock4GG 79 77 81 79
Cerius2/PLP 76 77 78 71
SYBYL/F-Score 74 75 75 71
Cerius2/LigScore 74 77 75 67
DrugScorePDB 72 73 81 58
Cerius2/LUDI 67 75 66 54
X-Score 66 82 59 46
AutoDock3 62 73 53 54
Cerius2/PMF 52 68 44 33
SYBYL/G-Score 42 55 34 29
SYBYL/ChemScore 35 32 34 42
SYBYL/D-Score 26 23 28 29
a

Data were adopted from Wang et al.25 except for AutoDock4 scoring functions.

b

Scoring functions are sorted according to the overall success rates.