Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36430888›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2022

Successes and Failures of Static Aptamer-Target 3D Docking Models.

John G Bruno

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

1 author.

John G BrunoNanohmics Inc., Austin, TX 78741, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2745-2624

Funding

Development of Anti-OLAM Aptamers as Novel AnalgesicsR43GM101712 · NIGMS · OPERATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION · PI BRUNO, JOHN G · 2012 to 2012
$147k
NIAID NIH HHS HHSN272201700075CNIGMS NIH HHS R43 GM101712
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While Molecular Dynamics simulation programs are probably superior for predicting the binding and affinity of aptamers and their cognate ligands, such molecular dynamics programs require more computing power and analysis time than static docking programs that are more widely accessible to the scientific community on the internet. Static docking programs can be used to investigate the geometric fit of rigid DNA or RNA aptamer 3D structures and their ligands to aid in predicting the relative affinities and cross-reactivity of various potential ligands. Herein, the author describes when such static 3D docking analysis has worked well to produce useful predictions or confirmation of high-affinity aptamer interactions or successful aptamer beacon behavior and when it has not worked well. The analysis of why failures may occur with static 3D computer models is also discussed.

Indexed as

Aptamers, NucleotideBiophysical PhenomenaLigandsMolecular Dynamics SimulationAptamers, NucleotideLigandsaptamerAvogadrobeaconFRETPatchDockRNA ComposerYASARA

Identifiers

PMID36430888
PMCPMC9695435

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.