Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Feb 25.
Published in final edited form as: J Chem Inf Model. 2019 Feb 12;59(2):689–701. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00020

Table 4.

Comparison between BCL::MolAlign and Maximum Common Substructure-Based Alignment of Congeneric Ligands

maximum common substructure alignment
BCL::MolAlign
data set total native conformer RMSD ChargeRMSD MolAlign score native conformer flexible alignment
AR 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
AVGLU 5 5 5 4 4 5 4
BETAX 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
CALM 5 4 5 5 5 5 5
CATB 6 6 5 5 5 4 6
CDK2 7 6 5 7 3 7 3
CTAP 6 6 3 3 3 6 6
FXA 4 4 3 4 3 3 3
GLCB 5 2 2 2 4 5 5
HCV 6 4 4 4 6 6 6
HSP90 6 3 2 2 5 6 6
LPXC 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
MTAN 7 5 2 3 5 7 5
P38 4 4 2 3 2 4 3
PNMT 5 5 2 2 2 5 2
RET 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
SYK 8 8 6 6 6 8 7
THERM 7 7 6 6 5 6 5
THROM 5 5 5 5 4 5 5
TPPHO 6 6 3 3 6 6 5
total    111   99   79   83   87    107   95
% recovery      89%      71%      75%      78%      96%      86%