. 2017 Jun 8;2(6):2583–2592. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.7b00330

Table 3. Docking Screens of In-House Homology Models^a.

		AUC			E_f10%
protocol	reference pose	β₂(β₁)	β₂(A_2A)	A_2A(β₂)	β₂(β₁)	β₂(A_2A)	A_2A(β₂)
FF scoring	none	0.69	0.61	0.49	3.48	1.74	1.08
3D similarity	Ind. Fit	0.70	0.79	0.65	5.22	4.35	2.97
	Top 3 S.	0.69	0.79	0.50	5.00	4.09	0.83
	Top 3 Dif.	0.82	0.76	0.76	5.45	3.18	4.72
PLIF similarity	Ind. Fit	0.63	0.47	0.40	3.92	1.74	0.27
	Top 3 S.	0.60	0.43	0.52	3.18	1.36	1.94
	Top 3 Dif.	0.62	0.50	0.53	1.82	2.73	1.67

Reported is the recall performance for docking into different homology models using alternative ranking schemes. For 3D and PLIF similarity, three different reference pose schemes are evaluated. “Ind. Fit” stands for induced fit, “Top 3 S.” refers to the three top-scoring ligand docking poses, and “Top 3 Dif.” to three dissimilar docking poses. Results for the best performing methods are in bold.

Table 3. Docking Screens of In-House Homology Modelsa.

Table 3. Docking Screens of In-House Homology Models^a.