ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2009
Prediction of sub-cavity binding preferences using an adaptive physicochemical structure representation.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Considerations of Protein Subpockets in Fragment-Based Drug Design.Chemical biology & drug design · 2016Article
- Article
- Local functional descriptors for surface comparison based binding prediction.BMC bioinformatics · 2012Article
- Binding of protein kinase inhibitors to synapsin I inferred from pair-wise binding site similarity measurements.PloS one · 2010Article
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
motivationThe ability to predict binding profiles for an arbitrary protein can significantly improve the areas of drug discovery, lead optimization and protein function prediction. At present, there are no successful algorithms capable of predicting binding profiles for novel proteins. Existing methods typically rely on manually curated templates or entire active site comparison. Consequently, they perform best when analyzing proteins sharing significant structural similarity with known proteins (i.e. proteins resulting from divergent evolution). These methods fall short when used to characterize the binding profile of a novel active site or one for which a template is not available. In contrast to previous approaches, our method characterizes the binding preferences of sub-cavities within the active site by exploiting a large set of known protein-ligand complexes. The uniqueness of our approach lies not only in the consideration of sub-cavities, but also in the more complete structural representation of these sub-cavities, their parametrization and the method by which they are compared. By only requiring local structural similarity, we are able to leverage previously unused structural information and perform binding inference for proteins that do not share significant structural similarity with known systems.
resultsOur algorithm demonstrates the ability to accurately cluster similar sub-cavities and to predict binding patterns across a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes. When applied to two high-profile drug targets, our algorithm successfully generates a binding profile that is consistent with known inhibitors. The results suggest that our algorithm should be useful in structure-based drug discovery and lead optimization.
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.