ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2020
Combining fragment docking with graph theory to improve ligand docking for homology model structures.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Template-Based Docking Using Automated Maximum Common Substructure Identification with EnzyDock: Mechanistic and Inhibitor Docking.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
- InTxDB: interaction data between gram-negative bacteria secreted effectors and host proteins.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025Article
- Comparative in silico analysis of CNS-active molecules targeting the blood-brain barrier choline transporter for Alzheimer's disease therapy.In silico pharmacology · 2024Article
- Cleaning of Wastewater Using Crosslinked Poly(Acrylamide-Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computational protein-ligand docking is well-known to be prone to inaccuracies in input receptor structures, and it is challenging to obtain good docking results with computationally predicted receptor structures (e.g. through homology modeling). Here we introduce a fragment-based docking method and test if it reduces requirements on the accuracy of an input receptor structures relative to non-fragment docking approaches. In this method, small rigid fragments are docked first using AutoDock Vina to generate a large number of favorably docked poses spanning the receptor binding pocket. Then a graph theory maximum clique algorithm is applied to find combined sets of docked poses of different fragment types onto which the complete ligand can be properly aligned. On the basis of these alignments, possible binding poses of complete ligand are determined. This docking method is first tested for bound docking on a series of Cytochrome P450 (CYP450) enzyme-substrate complexes, in which experimentally determined receptor structures are used. For all complexes tested, ligand poses of less than 1 Å root mean square deviations (RMSD) from the actual binding positions can be recovered. Then the method is tested for unbound docking with modeled receptor structures for a number of protein-ligand complexes from different families including the very recent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) protease. For all complexes, poses with RMSD less than 3 Å from actual binding positions can be recovered. Our results suggest that for docking with approximately modeled receptor structures, fragment-based methods can be more effective than common complete ligand docking approaches.
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.