ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2010
Defining scaffold geometries for interacting with proteins: geometrical classification of secondary structure linking regions.
Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent advances in automated protein design and its future challenges.Expert opinion on drug discovery · 2018Review
- Discovery and Characterization of a Potent Interleukin-6 Binding Peptide with Neutralizing Activity In Vivo.PloS one · 2015Article
- What's in a loop?Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medicinal chemists synthesize arrays of molecules by attaching functional groups to scaffolds. There is evidence suggesting that some scaffolds yield biologically active molecules more than others, these are termed privileged substructures. One role of the scaffold is to present its side-chains for molecular recognition, and biologically relevant scaffolds may present side-chains in biologically relevant geometries or shapes. Since drug discovery is primarily focused on the discovery of compounds that bind to proteinaceous targets, we have been deciphering the scaffold shapes that are used for binding proteins as they reflect biologically relevant shapes. To decipher the scaffold architecture that is important for binding protein surfaces, we have analyzed the scaffold architecture of protein loops, which are defined in this context as continuous four residue segments of a protein chain that are not part of an α-helix or β-strand secondary structure. Loops are an important molecular recognition motif of proteins. We have found that 39 clusters reflect the scaffold architecture of 89% of the 23,331 loops in the dataset, with average intra-cluster and inter-cluster RMSD of 0.47 and 1.91, respectively. These protein loop scaffolds all have distinct shapes. We have used these 39 clusters that reflect the scaffold architecture of protein loops as biological descriptors. This involved generation of a small dataset of scaffold-based peptidomimetics. We found that peptidomimetic scaffolds with reported biological activities matched loop scaffold geometries and those peptidomimetic scaffolds with no reported biologically activities did not. This preliminary evidence suggests that organic scaffolds with tight matches to the preferred loop scaffolds of proteins, implies the likelihood of the scaffold to be biologically relevant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20862601What 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.