We compared the performance of our EC scores with the widely used Pearson's R correlation coefficient. The results are summarized in Table . In all the cases we studied, the new EC scores consistently outperformed the Pearson's R coefficients. For cases in which both methods have a strong linear relationship with bioactivity (WDR5 and SOS1), the new EC scores gave better R 2 coefficients. There are cases that only new EC scores can have linear relationship with bioactivity (VEGFR-2 and PPAT). This is in part attributed to the modified scoring function of WDR5-WIN, an arginine-binding cavity in WDR5, has not previously shown good EC correlation. We investigate the effect of the EC scores to distinguish the binding affinity in S4 and S7 sub-pockets. As shown in Figure , S1 sub-pocket's ESP surface is neutral, and a weak electrostatic interaction is anticipated. The compounds designed for S4 and S7 sub-pockets are listed in charged center is 4.9 Å. Other ligands are farther away from L259's charged center and did not have polar interaction like compound 6. The correlation of R 2 coefficient between the new EC scores and activity reaches 0.66 in contrast to the 0.54 from Pearson's R coefficient (Figure ).