ArticlePloS one2011
Prediction of ligand binding using an approach designed to accommodate diversity in protein-ligand interactions.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Strong Ligand-Protein Interactions Derived from Diffuse Ligand Interactions with Loose Binding Sites.BioMed research international · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computational determination of protein-ligand interaction potential is important for many biological applications including virtual screening for therapeutic drugs. The novel internal consensus scoring strategy is an empirical approach with an extended set of 9 binding terms combined with a neural network capable of analysis of diverse complexes. Like conventional consensus methods, internal consensus is capable of maintaining multiple distinct representations of protein-ligand interactions. In a typical use the method was trained using ligand classification data (binding/no binding) for a single receptor. The internal consensus analyses successfully distinguished protein-ligand complexes from decoys (r², 0.895 for a series of typical proteins). Results are superior to other tested empirical methods. In virtual screening experiments, internal consensus analyses provide consistent enrichment as determined by ROC-AUC and pROC metrics.
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.