Table 1.
Predictive performances of the generated models based on the performed virtual screening simulations as encoded by the highest and the average Enrichment Factor (EF) 1% values.
| Utilized Protein(s) (PDB Id) |
Scores of Best Pose Only | Score Averages of 10 Poses | Score Averages and Ranges of 10 Poses | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EF 1% Mean a | Best EF 1% | EF 1% Mean a | Best EF 1% | EF 1% Mean a | Best EF 1% | |
| 3UON | 18.1 | 24.1 | 42.8 | 48.2 | 47.5 | 51.6 |
| 4MQT | 59.4 | 65.4 | 54.4 | 65.4 | 64.2 | 68.8 |
| 3UON + 4MQT b | 60.7 | 65.4 | 59.0 | 65.4 | 66.1 | 68.8 |
a Mean values as computed by averaging the EF 1% values of the 10 best consensus equations generated by the EFO method; (b) 3UON+4MQT indicates the performances of the consensus models generated by combining the scores as computed for the two simulated hM2 structures.