ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2005
Design of ligand binding to an engineered protein cavity using virtual screening and thermal up-shift evaluation.
Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rescoring docking hit lists for model cavity sites: predictions and experimental testing.Journal of molecular biology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proteins could be used to carry and deliver small compounds. As a tool for designing ligand binding sites in protein cores, a three-step virtual screening method is presented that has been optimised using existing data on T4 lysozyme complexes and tested in a newly engineered cavity in flavodoxin. The method can pinpoint, in large databases, ligands of specific protein cavities. In the first step, physico-chemical filters are used to screen the library and discard a majority of compounds. In the second step, a flexible, fast docking procedure is used to score and select a smaller number of compounds as potential binders. In the third step, a finer method is used to dock promising molecules of the hit list into the protein cavity, and an optimised free energy function allows discarding the few false positives by calculating the affinity of the modelled complexes. To demonstrate the portability of the method, several cavities have been designed and engineered in the flavodoxin from Anabaena PCC 7119, and the W66F/L44A double mutant has been selected as a suitable host protein. The NCI database has then been screened for potential binders, and the binding to the engineered cavity of five promising compounds and three tentative non-binders has been experimentally tested by thermal up-shift assays and spectroscopic titrations. The five tentative binders (some apolar and some polar), unlike the three tentative non-binders, are shown to bind to the host mutant and, importantly, not to bind to the wild type protein. The three-step virtual screening method developed can thus be used to identify ligands of buried protein cavities. We anticipate that the method could also be used, in a reverse manner, to identify natural or engineerable protein cavities for the hosting of ligands of interest.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16231201What 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.