Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10338024›Full record

ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society1999

The effect of multiple binding modes on empirical modeling of ligand docking to proteins.

R Brem, K A Dill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. In Silico Isomerization Produces Apt Negative Data for VHTS Validation.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

R BremDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California at San Francisco, 94143-1204, USA.
K A Dill

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

LigandsProtein BindingComputer SimulationKineticsModels, ChemicalProteinsLigandsProteins

Identifiers

PMID10338024
PMCPMC2144332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.