this is for holding javascript data
David Koes added section_Results_General_Observations_Protein__.tex
over 8 years ago
Commit id: 21b61275d6d4bc89e3c0680a4d36be6200bf4e76
deletions | additions
diff --git a/section_Results_General_Observations_Protein__.tex b/section_Results_General_Observations_Protein__.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0c00d6c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/section_Results_General_Observations_Protein__.tex
...
\section*{Results}
General Observations:
Protein targets with ligands that have many key interactions for their binding mode did not perform as favorably as targets with ligands that have a few key interactions. Targets with relatively few interactions may have the important features for protein inhibition covered by the SMARTS expression and fragment pre-alignment. These targets may easily reject compounds that did not match the SMARTS expression key for understanding the mode of inhibition.
In general, FOMS performed better than VAMS for every protein target. This indicates that it is an effective pre-screen, when considering the earlier success of VAMS (cite VAMS). In general, more specific SMARTS expressions led to a higher performance for both FOMS and VAMS. Higher specificity of fragment choice will lead to identifying singly the most important interactions involved in the binding mode of the ligand. In general, the interaction point method for both FOMS and VAMS yielded the highest performance (cite table). The interaction point method is able to include specific areas where interactions are likely to occur between the receptor and ligand. Logically, this approach should yield the highest performance since it uses the most information involved in ligand-receptor interactions.
