ArticleBiophysics and physicobiology2016
Determination of locked interfaces in biomolecular complexes using Haptimol_RD.
Article in Biophysics and physicobiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interactive Flexible-Receptor Molecular Docking in Virtual Reality Using DockIT.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2022Article
- Preface of Special Issue "Protein-Ligand Interactions".Biophysics and physicobiology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interactive haptics-assisted docking provides a virtual environment for the study of molecular complex formation. It enables the user to interact with the virtual molecules, experience the interaction forces via their sense of touch, and gain insights about the docking process itself. Here we use a recently developed haptics software tool, Haptimol_RD, for the rigid docking of protein subunits to form complexes. Dimers, both homo and hetero, are loaded into the software with their subunits separated in space for the purpose of assessing whether they can be brought back into the correct docking pose via rigid-body movements. Four dimers were classified into two types: two with an interwinding subunit interface and two with a non-interwinding subunit interface. It was found that the two with an interwinding interface could not be docked whereas the two with the non-interwinding interface could be. For the two that could be docked a "sucking" effect could be felt on the haptic device when the correct binding pose was approached which is associated with a minimum in the interaction energy. It is clear that for those that could not be docked, the conformation of one or both of the subunits must change upon docking. This leads to the steric-based concept of a locked or non-locked interface. Non-locked interfaces have shapes that allow the subunits to come together or come apart without the necessity of intra-subunit conformational change, whereas locked interfaces require a conformational change within one or both subunits for them to be able to come apart.
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.