The data presented in Figure shows the relationship between selecting the pose with various scoring functions and ranking the selected pose with a second scoring function (see Figure for details). There is little difference between the worst crystal pose selector (RCC11, Figure ) and the best selector (RMR6, Figure ). Therefore the ability of a selector to find the crystals pose of the ligand is not as important as the ranker.,. Further, the correlation between the RMC15 score and the pKi of a compound for all possible selectors (given in Figure ) does not deviate greatly, revealing that the selection of the pose for a co-crystal has a minor impact on ranking the activity of the ligand. This conclusion is further supported by Figures S10-14 which show that difference between selecting a pose using RMR6 vs selecting the best RMSD pose does not improve ability to rank the pKi of compounds binding to the same protein when using RMC15 to rank the co-crystals. While these findings are encouraging as their remove the burden of finding the crystal pose of the ligand, a more in depth study using an additional benchmarking set such as the Directory of Useful Decoys (DUD-E) is required to determine the proper choice of scoring function and protein target for complexes where the 3D coordinates are not provided.