ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society1999
The effect of multiple binding modes on empirical modeling of ligand docking to proteins.
Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- In Silico Isomerization Produces Apt Negative Data for VHTS Validation.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Consistent improvement of cross-docking results using binding site ensembles generated with elastic network normal modes.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2009Article
- Toward a molecular understanding of the interaction of dual specificity phosphatases with substrates: insights from structure-based modeling and high throughput screening.Current medicinal chemistry · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A popular approach to the computational modeling of ligand/receptor interactions is to use an empirical free energy like model with adjustable parameters. Parameters are learned from one set of complexes, then used to predict another set. To improve these empirical methods requires an independent way to study their inherent errors. We introduce a toy model of ligand/receptor binding as a workbench for testing such errors. We study the errors incurred from the two state binding assumption--the assumption that a ligand is either bound in one orientation, or unbound. We find that the two state assumption can cause large errors in free energy predictions, but it does not affect rank order predictions significantly. We show that fitting parameters using data from high affinity ligands can reduce two state errors; so can using more physical models that do not use the two state assumption. We also find that when using two state models to predict free energies, errors are more severe on high affinity ligands than low affinity ligands. And we show that two state errors can be diagnosed by systematically adding new binding modes when predicting free energies: if predictions worsen as the modes are added, then the two state assumption in the fitting step may be at fault.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.