ArticleMethods (San Diego, Calif.)2016
PatchSurfers: Two methods for local molecular property-based binding ligand prediction.
Article in Methods (San Diego, Calif.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computational approaches to druggable site identification: Current status and future perspective.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2026Review
- Real-time structure search and structure classification for AlphaFold protein models.Communications biology · 2022Article
- BCL::MolAlign: Three-Dimensional Small Molecule Alignment for Pharmacophore Mapping.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2019Article
- Exploring the potential of 3D Zernike descriptors and SVM for protein-protein interface prediction.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- Advances in the Development of Shape Similarity Methods and Their Application in Drug Discovery.Frontiers in chemistry · 2018Review
- Combined Approach of Patch-Surfer and PL-PatchSurfer for Protein-Ligand Binding Prediction in CSAR 2013 and 2014.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2016Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Protein function prediction is an active area of research in computational biology. Function prediction can help biologists make hypotheses for characterization of genes and help interpret biological assays, and thus is a productive area for collaboration between experimental and computational biologists. Among various function prediction methods, predicting binding ligand molecules for a target protein is an important class because ligand binding events for a protein are usually closely intertwined with the proteins' biological function, and also because predicted binding ligands can often be directly tested by biochemical assays. Binding ligand prediction methods can be classified into two types: those which are based on protein-protein (or pocket-pocket) comparison, and those that compare a target pocket directly to ligands. Recently, our group proposed two computational binding ligand prediction methods, Patch-Surfer, which is a pocket-pocket comparison method, and PL-PatchSurfer, which compares a pocket to ligand molecules. The two programs apply surface patch-based descriptions to calculate similarity or complementarity between molecules. A surface patch is characterized by physicochemical properties such as shape, hydrophobicity, and electrostatic potentials. These properties on the surface are represented using three-dimensional Zernike descriptors (3DZD), which are based on a series expansion of a 3 dimensional function. Utilizing 3DZD for describing the physicochemical properties has two main advantages: (1) rotational invariance and (2) fast comparison. Here, we introduce Patch-Surfer and PL-PatchSurfer with an emphasis on PL-PatchSurfer, which is more recently developed. Illustrative examples of PL-PatchSurfer performance on binding ligand prediction as well as virtual drug screening are also provided.
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.