ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2018
Using physics-based pose predictions and free energy perturbation calculations to predict binding poses and relative binding affinities for FXR ligands in the D3R Grand Challenge 2.
Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- De novo drug design through gradient-based regularized search in information-theoretically controlled latent space.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2024Article
- Computational Investigation of BMAA and Its Carbamate Adducts as Potential GluR2 Modulators.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024Article
- Modern Alchemical Free Energy Methods for Drug Discovery Explained.ACS physical chemistry Au · 2023Review
- Assessing the performance of docking, FEP, and MM/GBSA methods on a series of KLK6 inhibitors.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2023Article
- Ligand and Structure-Based Virtual Screening in Combination, to Evaluate Small Organic Molecules as Inhibitors for the XIAP Anti-Apoptotic Protein: The Xanthohumol Hypothesis.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Drug-Target Binding by Molecular Simulation.Chemical reviews · 2020Review
- Machine learning classification can reduce false positives in structure-based virtual screening.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- D3R grand challenge 4: blind prediction of protein-ligand poses, affinity rankings, and relative binding free energies.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2020Article
- Molecular Mechanism for Attractant Signaling to DHMA by E. coli Tsr.Biophysical journal · 2020Article
- Free-energy landscape of molecular interactions between endothelin 1 and human endothelin type B receptor: fly-casting mechanism.Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS · 2019Article
- Effect of set up protocols on the accuracy of alchemical free energy calculation over a set of ACK1 inhibitors.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computer-aided drug design has become an integral part of drug discovery and development in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, and is nowadays extensively used in the lead identification and lead optimization phases. The drug design data resource (D3R) organizes challenges against blinded experimental data to prospectively test computational methodologies as an opportunity for improved methods and algorithms to emerge. We participated in Grand Challenge 2 to predict the crystallographic poses of 36 Farnesoid X Receptor (FXR)-bound ligands and the relative binding affinities for two designated subsets of 18 and 15 FXR-bound ligands. Here, we present our methodology for pose and affinity predictions and its evaluation after the release of the experimental data. For predicting the crystallographic poses, we used docking and physics-based pose prediction methods guided by the binding poses of native ligands. For FXR ligands with known chemotypes in the PDB, we accurately predicted their binding modes, while for those with unknown chemotypes the predictions were more challenging. Our group ranked #1st (based on the median RMSD) out of 46 groups, which submitted complete entries for the binding pose prediction challenge. For the relative binding affinity prediction challenge, we performed free energy perturbation (FEP) calculations coupled with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. FEP/MD calculations displayed a high success rate in identifying compounds with better or worse binding affinity than the reference (parent) compound. Our studies suggest that when ligands with chemical precedent are available in the literature, binding pose predictions using docking and physics-based methods are reliable; however, predictions are challenging for ligands with completely unknown chemotypes. We also show that FEP/MD calculations hold predictive value and can nowadays be used in a high throughput mode in a lead optimization project provided that crystal structures of sufficiently high quality are available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29119352What 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.