Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18642866›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2008

Molecular docking of intercalators and groove-binders to nucleic acids using Autodock and Surflex.

Patrick A Holt, Jonathan B Chaires, John O Trent

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 221 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Computational Evaluation ofCurrent computer-aided drug design · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Design, synthesis andJournal of enzyme inhibition and medicinal chemistry · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Patrick A HoltJames Graham Brown Cancer Center and the Department of Medicine, University of Louisville, 5239 S. Jackson Street, Louisville, KY 40202, USA.
Jonathan B Chaires
John O Trent
University of Louisville · US

Funding

Targeting Nucleic Acids with an Integrated Vitural and Actual ScreenR01GM077422 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE · PI CHAIRES, JONATHAN B., TRENT, JOHN O · 2007 to 2020
$3.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS 1R01 GM 077422NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM077422
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The molecular docking tools Autodock and Surflex accurately reproduce the crystallographic structures of a collection of small molecule ligands that have been shown to bind nucleic acids. Docking studies were performed with the intercalators daunorubicin and ellipticine and the minor groove binders distamycin and pentamidine. Autodock and Surflex dock daunorubicin and distamycin to their nucleic acid targets within a resolution of approximately 2 A, which is similar to the limit of the crystal structure resolution. However, for the top ranked poses, Autodock and Surflex both dock ellipticine into the correct site but in a different orientation compared to the crystal structure. This appears not only to be partly related to the symmetry of the target nucleic acid, as ellipticine is able to dock from either side of the intercalation site, but also due to the shape of the ligand and docking accuracy. Surflex docks pentamidine in a symmetrically equivalent orientation relative to the crystal structure, while Autodock was able to dock this molecule in the original orientation. In the case of the Surflex docking of pentamidine, the initial rmsd is misleading, given the symmetrical structure of pentamidine. Importantly, the ranking functions of both of these programs are able to return a top pose within approximately 2 A rmsd for daunorubicin, distamycin, and pentamidine and approximately 3 A rmsd for ellipticine compared to their respective crystal structures. Some docking challenges and potential pitfalls are explored, such as the importance of hydrogen treatment on ligands as well as the scoring functions of Autodock and Surflex. Overall for this set of complexes, Surflex is preferred over Autodock for virtual screening, as although the results are comparable, Surflex has significantly faster performance and ease of use under the optimal software conditions tested. These experiments show that molecular docking techniques can be successfully extended to include nucleic acid targets, a finding which has important implications for virtual screening applications and in the design of new small molecules to target therapeutically relevant morphologies of nucleic acids.

Indexed as

Crystallography, X-RayLigandsModels, MolecularMolecular StructureNucleic AcidsLigandsNucleic Acids

Identifiers

PMID18642866
PMCPMC2755229
OpenAlexW1967081738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.