Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21064162›Full record

ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2011

Prediction of ligand-binding sites of proteins by molecular docking calculation for a random ligand library.

Yoshifumi Fukunishi, Haruki Nakamura

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Withanone fromDrug design, development and therapy · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Computational methods in drug discovery.Beilstein journal of organic chemistry · 2016
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. 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

2 authors.

Yoshifumi FukunishiProtein Structural Information Analysis Team, Biological Information Research Center (BIRC), National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-0064, Japan. y-fukunishi@aist.go.jp
Haruki Nakamura

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A new approach to predicting the ligand-binding sites of proteins was developed, using protein-ligand docking computation. In this method, many compounds in a random library are docked onto the whole protein surface. We assumed that the true ligand-binding site would exhibit stronger affinity to the compounds in the random library than the other sites, even if the random library did not include the ligand corresponding to the true binding site. We also assumed that the affinity of the true ligand-binding site would be correlated to the docking scores of the compounds in the random library, if the ligand-binding site was correctly predicted. We call this method the molecular-docking binding-site finding (MolSite) method. The MolSite method was applied to 89 known protein-ligand complex structures extracted from the Protein Data Bank, and it predicted the correct binding sites with about 80-99% accuracy, when only the single top-ranked site was adopted. In addition, the average docking score was weakly correlated to the experimental protein-ligand binding free energy, with a correlation coefficient of 0.44.

Indexed as

Models, MolecularSmall Molecule LibrariesBinding SitesComputer SimulationDatabases, ProteinLigandsProtein BindingProteinsThermodynamicsLigandsProteinsSmall Molecule Libraries

Identifiers

PMID21064162
PMCPMC3047065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.