Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31123958›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2019

A benchmark study of loop modeling methods applied to G protein-coupled receptors.

Lee H Wink, Daniel L Baker, Judith A Cole, Abby L Parrill

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. G Protein-Coupled Receptor-Ligand Pose and Functional Class Prediction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lee H WinkDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA.
Daniel L BakerDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA.
Judith A ColeDepartment of Biological Sciences, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA.
Abby L ParrillDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA. aparrill@memphis.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1658-8497
University of Memphis · US

Funding

GPR88 Ligand DiscoveryR15MH109034 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS · PI PARRILL, ABBY L. · 2016 to 2016
$408k
NIMH NIH HHS R15 MH109034
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR) are important drug discovery targets. Despite progress, many GPCR structures have not yet been solved. For these targets, comparative modeling is used in virtual ligand screening to prioritize experimental efforts. However, the structure of extracellular loop 2 (ECL2) is often poorly predicted. This is significant due to involvement of ECL2 in ligand binding for many Class A GPCR. Here we examine the performance of loop modeling protocols available in the Rosetta (cyclic coordinate descent [CCD], KIC with fragments [KICF] and next generation KIC [NGK]) and Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) software suites (de novo search). ECL2 from GPCR crystal structures served as the structure prediction targets and were divided into four sets depending on loop length. Results suggest that KICF and NGK sampled and scored more loop models with sub-angstrom and near-atomic accuracy than CCD or de novo search for loops of 24 or fewer residues. None of the methods were able to sample loop conformations with near-atomic accuracy for the longest targets ranging from 25 to 32 residues based on 1000 models generated. For these long loop targets, increased conformational sampling is necessary. The strongly conserved disulfide bond between Cys3.25 and Cys45.50 in ECL2 proved an effective filter. Setting an upper limit of 5.1 Å on the S-S distance improved the lowest RMSD model included in the top 10 scored structures in Groups 1-4 on average between 0.33 and 1.27 Å. Disulfide bond formation and geometry optimization of ECL2 provided an additional incremental benefit in structure quality.

Indexed as

AnimalsDatabases, ProteinHumansModels, MolecularProtein ConformationReceptors, G-Protein-CoupledSoftwareReceptors, G-Protein-CoupledComparative modelingGPCRHomology modelingLoop modeling

Identifiers

PMID31123958
PMCPMC6628340
OpenAlexW2945066357

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.