Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36976507›Full record

ArticleApplied biochemistry and biotechnology2023

Structure-Based Virtual Screening, Molecular Docking, Molecular Dynamics Simulation of EGFR for the Clinical Treatment of Glioblastoma.

Anushka Bhrdwaj, Mohnad Abdalla, Aditi Pande, Maddala Madhavi, Ishita Chopra, Lovely Soni, Natchimuthu Vijayakumar, Umesh Panwar, Mohd Aqueel Khan, Leena Prajapati and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Applied biochemistry and biotechnology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

17 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.

Anushka BhrdwajIn silico Research Laboratory, Eminent Biosciences, 91, Sector-A, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Indore, 452010, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Mohnad AbdallaKey Laboratory of Chemical Biology (Ministry of Education), Department of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, 44 Cultural West Road, Jinan, 250012, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China.
Aditi PandeIn silico Research Laboratory, Eminent Biosciences, 91, Sector-A, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Indore, 452010, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Maddala MadhaviDepartment of Zoology, Osmania University, Hyderabad, 500007, Telangana State, India.
Ishita ChopraIn silico Research Laboratory, Eminent Biosciences, 91, Sector-A, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Indore, 452010, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Lovely SoniIn silico Research Laboratory, Eminent Biosciences, 91, Sector-A, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Indore, 452010, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Natchimuthu VijayakumarDepartment of Physics, M.Kumarasamy College of Engineering, Karur, 639113, Tamil Nadu, India.
Umesh PanwarComputer Aided Drug Designing and Molecular Modeling Lab, Department of Bioinformatics, Alagappa University, Karaikudi, 630003, Tamil Nadu, India.
Mohd Aqueel KhanComputer Aided Drug Designing and Molecular Modeling Lab, Department of Bioinformatics, Alagappa University, Karaikudi, 630003, Tamil Nadu, India.
Leena PrajapatiIn silico Research Laboratory, Eminent Biosciences, 91, Sector-A, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Indore, 452010, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Deepika GujratiInstitute of Genetics and Hospital for Genetic Diseases, Osmania University, Begumpet, Hyderabad, 500016, India.
Pranoti BelapurkarDepartment of Biosciences, Acropolis Institute, Indore, 453771, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Sarah AlbogamiDepartment of Biotechnology, College of Science, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif, 21944, Saudi Arabia.
Tajamul HussainResearch Chair for Biomedical Applications of Nanomaterials, Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Chandrabose SelvarajCenter for Transdisciplinary Research, Department of Pharmacology, Saveetha College of Dental and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, 600077, Tamil Nadu, India.
Anuraj NayarisseriIn silico Research Laboratory, Eminent Biosciences, 91, Sector-A, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Indore, 452010, Madhya Pradesh, India. anuraj@eminentbio.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2567-9630
Sanjeev Kumar SinghComputer Aided Drug Designing and Molecular Modeling Lab, Department of Bioinformatics, Alagappa University, Karaikudi, 630003, Tamil Nadu, India. skysanjeeev@gmail.com.
Alagappa University · INInstitute of Genetics and Hospital for Genetic Diseases · INKing Saud University · SAM. Kumarasamy College of EngineeringOsmania University · INSaveetha University · INShandong University · CNTaif University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a WHO Grade IV tumor with poor visibility, a high risk of comorbidity, and exhibit limited treatment options. Resurfacing from second-rate glioma was originally classified as either mandatory or optional. Recent interest in personalized medicine has motivated research toward biomarker stratification-based individualized illness therapy. GBM biomarkers have been investigated for their potential utility in prognostic stratification, driving the development of targeted therapy and customizing therapeutic treatment. Due to the availability of a specific EGFRvIII mutational variation with a clear function in glioma-genesis, recent research suggests that EGFR has the potential to be a prognostic factor in GBM, while others have shown no clinical link between EGFR and survival. The pre-existing pharmaceutical lapatinib (PubChem ID: 208,908) with a higher affinity score is used for virtual screening. As a result, the current study revealed a newly screened chemical (PubChem CID: 59,671,768) with a higher affinity than the previously known molecule. When the two compounds are compared, the former has the lowest re-rank score. The time-resolved features of a virtually screened chemical and an established compound were investigated using molecular dynamics simulation. Both compounds are equivalent, according to the ADMET study. This report implies that the virtual screened chemical could be a promising Glioblastoma therapy.

Indexed as

GlioblastomaErbB ReceptorsHumansMolecular Docking SimulationMolecular Dynamics SimulationPrognosisEGFR protein, humanErbB ReceptorsADMETBoiled egg plotEGFRGlioblastomaMD simulationMolecular dockingR programmingVirtual screening

Identifiers

PMID36976507
OpenAlexW4361191155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.