Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19162472›Full record

ArticleCurrent opinion in structural biology2009

Computational evaluation of protein-small molecule binding.

Olgun Guvench, Alexander D MacKerell

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Current opinion in structural biology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Second harmonic generation detection of Ras conformational changes and discovery of a small molecule binder.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

2 authors.

Olgun GuvenchDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, 20 Penn Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, United States.
Alexander D MacKerell

Funding

Restoration of Tumor Suppression Activity in Malignant MelanomaR01CA107331 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI WEBER, DAVID JOSEPH · 2006 to 2015
$5.4M
Polarizable Force Field for Proteins and LipidsR01GM072558 · NIGMS · WEILL MEDICAL COLLEGE OF CORNELL UNIV · PI ROUX, BENOIT · 2005 to 2023
$5.1M
Oligonucleotide Conformational HeterogeneityR01GM051501 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI MACKERELL, ALEXANDER D · 2003 to 2018
$3.6M
Carbohydrate force fields for structure, dynamics and molecular recognitionR01GM070855 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI MACKERELL, ALEXANDER D · 2005 to 2018
$3.5M
Substrate specific ERK docking domain inhibitorsR01CA120215 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI SHAPIRO, PAUL S · 2006 to 2010
$1.2M
SHP-2 Inhibitors as Potential Therapeutic Agents for JMML and Noonan SyndromeR21HL082670 · NHLBI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI QU, CHENG-KUI · 2007 to 2008
$431k
HALOGEN FREE ENERGY DATABASE FOR RATIONAL DRUG DESIGNR29GM051501 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI MACKERELL, ALEXANDER D. · 1996 to 2000
$108k
NCI NIH HHS CA107331NCI NIH HHS CA120215NCI NIH HHS F32CA1197712NCI NIH HHS R01 CA107331NCI NIH HHS R01 CA120215NHLBI NIH HHS HL082670NHLBI NIH HHS R21 HL082670NIGMS NIH HHS GM51501NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM051501NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM070855NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM072558NIGMS NIH HHS R29 GM051501
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determining protein-small molecule binding affinity is a key component of present-day rational drug discovery. To circumvent the time, labor, and materials costs associated with experimental protein-small molecule binding assays, a variety of structure-based computational methods have been developed for determining protein-small molecule binding affinities. These methods can be placed in one of two classes: accurate but slow (Class 1), and fast but approximate (Class 2). Class 1 methods, which explicitly take into account protein flexibility and include an atomic-level description of solvation, are capable of quantitatively reproducing experimental protein-small molecule absolute binding free energies. However, Class 1 computational requirements make screening thousands to millions of small molecules against a protein, as required for rational drug design, infeasible for the foreseeable future. Class 2 methods, on the contrary, are sufficiently fast to perform such inhibitor screening, yet they suffer from limited descriptions of protein flexibility and solvation, which in turn limit their ability to select and rank-order small molecules by computed binding affinities. This review presents an overview of Class 1 and Class 2 methods, and avenues of research in Class 2 methods aimed at bringing them closer to Class 1 accuracy.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationAnimalsBinding SitesDrug DesignHumansProtein ConformationProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID19162472
PMCPMC2671234

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.