Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32737667›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2020

Benchmarking GPCR homology model template selection in combination with de novo loop generation.

Gregory L Szwabowski, Paige N Castleman, Chandler K Sears, Lee H Wink, Judith A Cole, Daniel L Baker, Abby L Parrill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. G Protein-Coupled Receptor-Ligand Pose and Functional Class Prediction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Gregory L SzwabowskiDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA.
Paige N CastlemanDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA.
Chandler K SearsDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA.
Lee H WinkDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA.
Judith A ColeDepartment of Biological Sciences, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA.
Daniel L BakerDepartment of Chemistry, 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

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) comprise the largest family of membrane proteins and are of considerable interest as targets for drug development. However, many GPCR structures remain unsolved. To address the structural ambiguity of these receptors, computational tools such as homology modeling and loop modeling are often employed to generate predictive receptor structures. Here we combined both methods to benchmark a protocol incorporating homology modeling based on a locally selected template and extracellular loop modeling that additionally evaluates the presence of template ligands during these modeling steps. Ligands were also docked using three docking methods and two pose selection methods to elucidate an optimal ligand pose selection method. Results suggest that local template-based homology models followed by loop modeling produce more accurate and predictive receptor models than models produced without loop modeling, with decreases in average receptor and ligand RMSD of 0.54 Å and 2.91 Å, respectively. Ligand docking results showcased the ability of MOE induced fit docking to produce ligand poses with atom root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) values at least 0.20 Å lower (on average) than the other two methods benchmarked in this study. In addition, pose selection methods (software-based scoring, ligand complementation) selected lower RMSD poses with MOE induced fit docking than either of the other methods (averaging at least 1.57 Å lower), indicating that MOE induced fit docking is most suited for docking into GPCR homology models in our hands. In addition, target receptor models produced with a template ligand present throughout the modeling process most often produced target ligand poses with RMSD values ≤ 4.5 Å and Tanimoto coefficients > 0.6 after selection based on ligand complementation than target receptor models produced in the absence of template ligands. Overall, the findings produced by this study support the use of local template homology modeling in combination with de novo ECL2 modeling in the presence of a ligand from the template crystal structure to generate GPCR models intended to study ligand binding interactions.

Indexed as

Molecular Docking SimulationMolecular Dynamics SimulationSoftwareBenchmarkingHumansLigandsProtein BindingProtein ConformationReceptors, G-Protein-CoupledLigandsReceptors, G-Protein-CoupledComparative modelingComparative protein modelingGPCRG protein-coupled receptorHomology modelingLigand dockingLigand identificationLoop modeling

Identifiers

PMID32737667
PMCPMC7484324

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.