Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23744289›Full record

ArticleNature protocols2013

Small-molecule ligand docking into comparative models with Rosetta.

Steven A Combs, Samuel L Deluca, Stephanie H Deluca, Gordon H Lemmon, David P Nannemann, Elizabeth D Nguyen, Jordan R Willis, Jonathan H Sheehan, Jens Meiler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature protocols, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing 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

86 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Patulin Detoxification by Evolutionarily Divergent Reductases ofJournal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 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

9 authors.

Steven A CombsCenter for Structural Biology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Samuel L Deluca
Stephanie H Deluca
Gordon H Lemmon
David P Nannemann
Elizabeth D Nguyen
Jordan R Willis
Jonathan H Sheehan
Jens Meiler

Funding

ROSETTA An Integrated Protein Structure Modeling SuiteR01GM073151 · NIGMS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KUHLMAN, BRIAN A · 2005 to 2019
$7.8M
Membrane Protein Structure Elucidation from sparse NMR data (KAMP)R01GM080403 · NIGMS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI MEILER, JENS · 2007 to 2019
$3.0M
Cheminformatics of Allosteric mGluR Modulation promotes Therapeutic DevelopmentR01MH090192 · NIMH · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI MEILER, JENS · 2010 to 2013
$1.5M
Computational Design of Protein-Ligand Interfaces - a Therapeutic StrategyR01GM099842 · NIGMS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI MEILER, JENS · 2012 to 2015
$1.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM073151NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM080403NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM099842NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH090192
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Structure-based drug design is frequently used to accelerate the development of small-molecule therapeutics. Although substantial progress has been made in X-ray crystallography and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, the availability of high-resolution structures is limited owing to the frequent inability to crystallize or obtain sufficient NMR restraints for large or flexible proteins. Computational methods can be used to both predict unknown protein structures and model ligand interactions when experimental data are unavailable. This paper describes a comprehensive and detailed protocol using the Rosetta modeling suite to dock small-molecule ligands into comparative models. In the protocol presented here, we review the comparative modeling process, including sequence alignment, threading and loop building. Next, we cover docking a small-molecule ligand into the protein comparative model. In addition, we discuss criteria that can improve ligand docking into comparative models. Finally, and importantly, we present a strategy for assessing model quality. The entire protocol is presented on a single example selected solely for didactic purposes. The results are therefore not representative and do not replace benchmarks published elsewhere. We also provide an additional tutorial so that the user can gain hands-on experience in using Rosetta. The protocol should take 5-7 h, with additional time allocated for computer generation of models.

Indexed as

Models, MolecularMolecular Docking SimulationProtein ConformationDrug DesignLigandsSequence AlignmentSoftwareUser-Computer InterfaceLigands

Identifiers

PMID23744289
PMCPMC5750396

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.