Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24802635›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2014

Prediction of substrates for glutathione transferases by covalent docking.

Guang Qiang Dong, Sara Calhoun, Hao Fan, Chakrapani Kalyanaraman, Megan C Branch, Susan T Mashiyama, Nir London, Matthew P Jacobson, Patricia C Babbitt, Brian K Shoichet and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Docking Screens for Novel Ligands Conferring New Biology.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2016
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Guang Qiang DongDepartment of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, and California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences (QB3), University of California at San Francisco , San Francisco, California 94158, United States.
Sara Calhoun
Hao Fan
Chakrapani Kalyanaraman
Megan C Branch
Susan T Mashiyama
Nir London
Matthew P Jacobson
Patricia C Babbitt
Brian K Shoichet
Richard N Armstrong
Andrej Sali
QB3 · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USVanderbilt University · USAgency for Science, Technology and Research · SGUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

Core H: MicrobiologyU54GM093342 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI CRONAN, JOHN E. · 2010 to 2015
$34.6M
STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM008284 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KORTEMME, TANJA · 1988 to 2022
$10.1M
Integrative Program in Complex Biological System (ipCBS)T32EB009383 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MARSHALL, WALLACE, WEINER, ORION D · 2009 to 2022
$3.2M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB009383NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008284NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM093342
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Enzymes in the glutathione transferase (GST) superfamily catalyze the conjugation of glutathione (GSH) to electrophilic substrates. As a consequence they are involved in a number of key biological processes, including protection of cells against chemical damage, steroid and prostaglandin biosynthesis, tyrosine catabolism, and cell apoptosis. Although virtual screening has been used widely to discover substrates by docking potential noncovalent ligands into active site clefts of enzymes, docking has been rarely constrained by a covalent bond between the enzyme and ligand. In this study, we investigate the accuracy of docking poses and substrate discovery in the GST superfamily, by docking 6738 potential ligands from the KEGG and MetaCyc compound libraries into 14 representative GST enzymes with known structures and substrates using the PLOP program [ Jacobson Proteins 2004 , 55 , 351 ]. For X-ray structures as receptors, one of the top 3 ranked models is within 3 Å all-atom root mean square deviation (RMSD) of the native complex in 11 of the 14 cases; the enrichment LogAUC value is better than random in all cases, and better than 25 in 7 of 11 cases. For comparative models as receptors, near-native ligand-enzyme configurations are often sampled but difficult to rank highly. For models based on templates with the highest sequence identity, the enrichment LogAUC is better than 25 in 5 of 11 cases, not significantly different from the crystal structures. In conclusion, we show that covalent docking can be a useful tool for substrate discovery and point out specific challenges for future method improvement.

Indexed as

Molecular Docking SimulationAnimalsBinding SitesCatalytic DomainCrystallography, X-RayDatabases, ProteinGlutathione TransferaseHumansLigandsSubstrate SpecificityGlutathione TransferaseLigands

Identifiers

PMID24802635
PMCPMC4068255
OpenAlexW2072882133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.