Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21723773›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in chemical biology2011

Large-scale integrated super-computing platform for next generation virtual drug discovery.

Wayne Mitchell, Shunji Matsumoto

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in chemical biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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.

Wayne MitchellExperimental Therapeutics Centre, Agency for Science and Technology Research (A*STAR), 31 Biopolis Way, #03-01 Nanos, Biopolis, Singapore 138669, Singapore.
Shunji Matsumoto

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional drug discovery starts by experimentally screening chemical libraries to find hit compounds that bind to protein targets, modulating their activity. Subsequent rounds of iterative chemical derivitization and rescreening are conducted to enhance the potency, selectivity, and pharmacological properties of hit compounds. Although computational docking of ligands to targets has been used to augment the empirical discovery process, its historical effectiveness has been limited because of the poor correlation of ligand dock scores and experimentally determined binding constants. Recent progress in super-computing, coupled to theoretical insights, allows the calculation of the Gibbs free energy, and therefore accurate binding constants, for usually large ligand-receptor systems. This advance extends the potential of virtual drug discovery. A specific embodiment of the technology, integrating de novo, abstract fragment based drug design, sophisticated molecular simulation, and the ability to calculate thermodynamic binding constants with unprecedented accuracy, are discussed.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationDrug DiscoveryMolecular Dynamics SimulationBinding SitesComputational BiologyLigandsProtein BindingProteinsQuantum TheoryThermodynamicsLigandsProteins

Identifiers

PMID21723773
PMCPMC7108376

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.