Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22392968›Full record

ArticleAnesthesia and analgesia2012

Binding site and affinity prediction of general anesthetics to protein targets using docking.

Renyu Liu, Jose Manuel Perez-Aguilar, David Liang, Jeffery G Saven

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesia and analgesia, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Renyu LiuDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Hospital of University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. liur@uphs.upenn.edu
Jose Manuel Perez-Aguilar
David Liang
Jeffery G Saven
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

X-ray and Neutron Interferometry Studies of Anesthetic Interactions with VoltageP01GM055876 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI XU, YAN · 1997 to 2017
$22.4M
Structural Approaches for Understanding Opioid and ??-Receptor InteractionsK08GM093115 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI LIU, RENYU · 2010 to 2013
$505k
NIGMS NIH HHS K08 GM093115NIGMS NIH HHS K08-GM-093115-01NIGMS NIH HHS P01 GM055876NIGMS NIH HHS P01GM055876
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe protein targets for general anesthetics remain unclear. A tool to predict anesthetic binding for potential binding targets is needed. In this study, we explored whether a computational method, AutoDock, could serve as such a tool.

methodsHigh-resolution crystal data of water-soluble proteins (cytochrome C, apoferritin, and human serum albumin), and a membrane protein (a pentameric ligand-gated ion channel from Gloeobacter violaceus [GLIC]) were used. Isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) experiments were performed to determine anesthetic affinity in solution conditions for apoferritin. Docking calculations were performed using DockingServer with the Lamarckian genetic algorithm and the Solis and Wets local search method (http://www.dockingserver.com/web). Twenty general anesthetics were docked into apoferritin. The predicted binding constants were compared with those obtained from ITC experiments for potential correlations. In the case of apoferritin, details of the binding site and their interactions were compared with recent cocrystallization data. Docking calculations for 6 general anesthetics currently used in clinical settings (isoflurane, sevoflurane, desflurane, halothane, propofol, and etomidate) with known 50% effective concentration (EC(50)) values were also performed in all tested proteins. The binding constants derived from docking experiments were compared with known EC(50) values and octanol/water partition coefficients for the 6 general anesthetics.

resultsAll 20 general anesthetics docked unambiguously into the anesthetic binding site identified in the crystal structure of apoferritin. The binding constants for 20 anesthetics obtained from the docking calculations correlate significantly with those obtained from ITC experiments (P = 0.04). In the case of GLIC, the identified anesthetic binding sites in the crystal structure are among the docking predicted binding sites, but not the top ranked site. Docking calculations suggest a most probable binding site located in the extracellular domain of GLIC. The predicted affinities correlated significantly with the known EC(50) values for the 6 frequently used anesthetics in GLIC for the site identified in the experimental crystal data (P = 0.006). However, predicted affinities in apoferritin, human serum albumin, and cytochrome C did not correlate with these 6 anesthetics' known experimental EC(50) values. A weak correlation between the predicted affinities and the octanol/water partition coefficients was observed for the sites in GLIC.

conclusionWe demonstrated that anesthetic binding sites and relative affinities can be predicted using docking calculations in an automatic docking server (AutoDock) for both water-soluble and membrane proteins. Correlation of predicted affinity and EC(50) for 6 frequently used general anesthetics was only observed in GLIC, a member of a protein family relevant to anesthetic mechanism.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnestheticsAnimalsApoferritinsBinding SitesCalorimetryCytochromes cHorsesHumansIon ChannelsLigandsModels, MolecularMolecular Dynamics SimulationOctanolsProtein BindingProteinsAnestheticsApoferritinsCytochromes cIon ChannelsLigandsOctanolsProteinsSerum AlbuminWater

Identifiers

PMID22392968
PMCPMC3334420
OpenAlexW1985192138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.