ArticleJournal of computational chemistry2012
Assessment of free energy predictors for ligand binding to a methyllysine histone code reader.
Article in Journal of computational chemistry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular Structure, Binding Affinity, and Biological Activity in the Epigenome.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Recent Developments in Linear Interaction Energy Based Binding Free Energy Calculations.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Methyllysine histone code readers constitute a new promising group of potential drug targets. For instance, L3MBTL1, a malignant brain tumor (MBT) protein, selectively binds mono- and di-methyllysine epigenetic marks (KMe, KMe(2) ) that eventually results in the negative regulation of multiple genes through the E2F/Rb oncogenic pathway. There is a pressing need in potent and selective small-molecule probes that would enable further target validation and might become therapeutic leads. Such an endeavor would require efficient tools to assess the free energy of protein-ligand binding. However, due to an unparalleled function of the MBT binding pocket (i.e., selective binding to KMe/KMe(2) ) and because of its distinctive structure representing a small aromatic "cage," an accurate assessment of its binding affinity to a ligand appears to be a challenging task. Here, we report a comparative analysis of computationally affordable affinity predictors applied to a set of seven small-molecule ligands interacting with L3MBTL1. The analysis deals with novel ligands and targets, but applies widespread computational approaches and intuitive comparison metrics that makes this study compatible with and incremental to earlier large scale accounts on the efficiency of affinity predictors. Ultimately, this study has revealed three top performers, far ahead of the other techniques, including two scoring functions, PMF04 and PLP, along with a simulation-based method MM-PB/SA. We discuss why some methods may perform better than others on this target class, the limits of their application, as well as how the efficiency of the most CPU-demanding techniques could be optimized.
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.