Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27714493›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2016

Improved pose and affinity predictions using different protocols tailored on the basis of data availability.

Philip Prathipati, Chioko Nagao, Shandar Ahmad, Kenji Mizuguchi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Philip PrathipatiNational Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition, 7-6-8 Saito-Asagi, Ibaraki City, Osaka, 567-0085, Japan. philip@nibiohn.go.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-7889-779X
Chioko NagaoNational Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition, 7-6-8 Saito-Asagi, Ibaraki City, Osaka, 567-0085, Japan.
Shandar AhmadNational Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition, 7-6-8 Saito-Asagi, Ibaraki City, Osaka, 567-0085, Japan.
Kenji MizuguchiNational Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition, 7-6-8 Saito-Asagi, Ibaraki City, Osaka, 567-0085, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The D3R 2015 grand drug design challenge provided a set of blinded challenges for evaluating the applicability of our protocols for pose and affinity prediction. In the present study, we report the application of two different strategies for the two D3R protein targets HSP90 and MAP4K4. HSP90 is a well-studied target system with numerous co-crystal structures and SAR data. Furthermore the D3R HSP90 test compounds showed high structural similarity to existing HSP90 inhibitors in BindingDB. Thus, we adopted an integrated docking and scoring approach involving a combination of both pharmacophoric and heavy atom similarity alignments, local minimization and quantitative structure activity relationships modeling, resulting in the reasonable prediction of pose [with the root mean square deviation (RMSD) values of 1.75 Å for mean pose 1, 1.417 Å for the mean best pose and 1.85 Å for the mean all poses] and affinity (ROC AUC = 0.702 at 7.5 pIC50 cut-off and R = 0.45 for 180 compounds). The second protein, MAP4K4, represents a novel system with limited SAR and co-crystal structure data and little structural similarity of the D3R MAP4K4 test compounds to known MAP4K4 ligands. For this system, we implemented an exhaustive pose and affinity prediction protocol involving docking and scoring using the PLANTS software which considers side chain flexibility together with protein-ligand fingerprints analysis assisting in pose prioritization. This protocol through fares poorly in pose prediction (with the RMSD values of 4.346 Å for mean pose 1, 4.69 Å for mean best pose and 4.75 Å for mean all poses) and produced reasonable affinity prediction (AUC = 0.728 at 7.5 pIC50 cut-off and R = 0.67 for 18 compounds, ranked 1st among 80 submissions).

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBinding SitesCrystallography, X-RayDatabases, ChemicalDrug DesignHSP90 Heat-Shock ProteinsHumansIntracellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsLigandsMolecular Docking SimulationProspective StudiesProtein BindingProtein ConformationProtein Serine-Threonine KinasesStructure-Activity RelationshipHSP90 Heat-Shock ProteinsIntracellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsLigandsMAP4K4 protein, humanProtein Serine-Threonine KinasesData-optimal protocolDockingGLMNETKinetic stabilityQSARScoringThermodynamic stability

Identifiers

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.