ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2018
Machine learning accelerates MD-based binding pose prediction between ligands and proteins.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Floridoside as a Hinge-Targeted Inhibitor of MAPK13: Atomistic Insights from Molecular Dynamics Simulations.Marine drugs · 2026Article
- Dynamic stability-driven machine learning improves binding pose identification on human serum albumin.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2026Article
- Article
- In-Silico Approaches for the Screening and Discovery of Broad-Spectrum Marine Natural Product Antiviral Agents Against Coronaviruses.Infection and drug resistance · 2023Review
- Structure-basedComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Review
- Recent Developments in Free Energy Calculations for Drug Discovery.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2021Review
- Application of MM-PBSA Methods in Virtual Screening.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- DROIDS 3.0-Detecting Genetic and Drug Class Variant Impact on Conserved Protein Binding Dynamics.Biophysical journal · 2020Article
- Fragment-centric topographic mapping method guides the understanding of ABCG2-inhibitor interactions.RSC advances · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motivation: Fast and accurate prediction of protein-ligand binding structures is indispensable for structure-based drug design and accurate estimation of binding free energy of drug candidate molecules in drug discovery. Recently, accurate pose prediction methods based on short Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations, such as MM-PBSA and MM-GBSA, among generated docking poses have been used. Since molecular structures obtained from MD simulation depend on the initial condition, taking the average over different initial conditions leads to better accuracy. Prediction accuracy of protein-ligand binding poses can be improved with multiple runs at different initial velocity. Results: This paper shows that a machine learning method, called Best Arm Identification, can optimally control the number of MD runs for each binding pose. It allows us to identify a correct binding pose with a minimum number of total runs. Our experiment using three proteins and eight inhibitors showed that the computational cost can be reduced substantially without sacrificing accuracy. This method can be applied for controlling all kinds of molecular simulations to obtain best results under restricted computational resources. Availability and implementation: Code and data are available on GitHub at https://github.com/tsudalab/bpbi. Contact: terayama@cbms.k.u-tokyo.ac.jp or tsuda@k.u-tokyo.ac.jp. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.