{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022564102564102566, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0071794871794871795, 'mean_word_length': 5.594594594594595, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Docking to multiple pockets or ligand fields for screening, activity prediction and scaffold hopping.

BACKGROUND
Two recent technological advances dramatically reducing the rate of false-negatives in activity prediction by docking flexible 3D models of compounds include multi-conformational docking (mPockDock) and the docking of candidates to atomic property fields derived by co-crystallized ligands (mApfDock).


RESULTS
The mApfDock and mPockDock provide the AUC of 90.4 and 83.8%, respectively. The mApfDock gave better performance when compounds required large induced-fit pocket changes unseen in crystallography, whereas the mPockDock is superior when the co-crystallized ligands do not represent sufficient chemical and binding location diversity.


CONCLUSION
Both approaches proved to be efficient for scaffold hopping; they are complementary when the coverage of the co-crystallized complexes is poor but become convergent when the complexes are diverse enough.