Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22035460›Full record

ReviewBMC biology2011

Molecular dynamics simulations and drug discovery.

Jacob D Durrant, J Andrew McCammon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 462 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
462citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

462 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Quantum computing applications in drug discovery.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026
    Review

402 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Jacob D DurrantDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. jdurrant@ucsd.edu
J Andrew McCammon

Funding

GRADUATE TRAINING IN CELLULAR &MOLECULAR PHARMACOLOGYT32GM007752 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI BROWN, JOAN HELLER, HANDEL, TRACY M · 1985 to 2023
$13.5M
THEORY OF BIOMOLECULAR DIFFUSIONR01GM031749 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON · PI HUBER, GARY ALEXANDER, MCCAMMON, JAMES ANDREW · 1985 to 2022
$7.8M
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNIGMS NIH HHS GM31749NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007752
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review discusses the many roles atomistic computer simulations of macromolecular (for example, protein) receptors and their associated small-molecule ligands can play in drug discovery, including the identification of cryptic or allosteric binding sites, the enhancement of traditional virtual-screening methodologies, and the direct prediction of small-molecule binding energies. The limitations of current simulation methodologies, including the high computational costs and approximations of molecular forces required, are also discussed. With constant improvements in both computer power and algorithm design, the future of computer-aided drug design is promising; molecular dynamics simulations are likely to play an increasingly important role.

Indexed as

Drug DiscoveryMolecular Dynamics SimulationAllosteric SiteHumansSmall Molecule LibrariesThermodynamicsSmall Molecule Libraries

Identifiers

PMID22035460
PMCPMC3203851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.