Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34458321›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in molecular biosciences2021

Recent Developments in Free Energy Calculations for Drug Discovery.

Edward King, Erick Aitchison, Han Li, Ray Luo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing 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

64 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Effect of CuACS chemical neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  3. ModBindProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Edward KingDepartment of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States.
Erick AitchisonDepartment of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States.
Han LiDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States.
Ray LuoDepartment of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The grand challenge in structure-based drug design is achieving accurate prediction of binding free energies. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations enable modeling of conformational changes critical to the binding process, leading to calculation of thermodynamic quantities involved in estimation of binding affinities. With recent advancements in computing capability and predictive accuracy, MD based virtual screening has progressed from the domain of theoretical attempts to real application in drug development. Approaches including the Molecular Mechanics Poisson Boltzmann Surface Area (MM-PBSA), Linear Interaction Energy (LIE), and alchemical methods have been broadly applied to model molecular recognition for drug discovery and lead optimization. Here we review the varied methodology of these approaches, developments enhancing simulation efficiency and reliability, remaining challenges hindering predictive performance, and applications to problems in the fields of medicine and biochemistry.

Indexed as

alchemical simulationbinding affinitydrug discoveryfree energy simulationlieMM-PBSAmolecular dynamics

Identifiers

PMID34458321
PMCPMC8387144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.