Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28509958›Full record

ReviewBiophysical reviews2014

Receptor-ligand molecular docking.

Isabella A Guedes, Camila S de Magalhães, Laurent E Dardenne

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biophysical reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 170 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
170citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

170 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. ACS omega · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

110 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

3 authors.

Isabella A GuedesLaboratório Nacional de Computação Científica (LNCC/MCT), Quitandinha, Petrópolis, RJ, 25651-075, Brazil.
Camila S de MagalhãesDepartamento de Matemática, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ), Seropédica, RJ, 23851-970, Brazil.
Laurent E DardenneLaboratório Nacional de Computação Científica (LNCC/MCT), Quitandinha, Petrópolis, RJ, 25651-075, Brazil. dardenne@lncc.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Docking methodology aims to predict the experimental binding modes and affinities of small molecules within the binding site of particular receptor targets and is currently used as a standard computational tool in drug design for lead compound optimisation and in virtual screening studies to find novel biologically active molecules. The basic tools of a docking methodology include a search algorithm and an energy scoring function for generating and evaluating ligand poses. In this review, we present the search algorithms and scoring functions most commonly used in current molecular docking methods that focus on protein-ligand applications. We summarise the main topics and recent computational and methodological advances in protein-ligand docking. Protein flexibility, multiple ligand binding modes and the free-energy landscape profile for binding affinity prediction are important and interconnected challenges to be overcome by further methodological developments in the docking field.

Indexed as

Protein-ligand dockingScoring functionsSearch algorithmsStructure-based drug design

Identifiers

PMID28509958
PMCPMC5425711

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.