Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37676592›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2024

Molecular Dynamics as a Tool for Virtual Ligand Screening.

Grégory Menchon, Laurent Maveyraud, Georges Czaplicki

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Grégory MenchonInserm U1242, Oncogenesis, Stress and Signaling (OSS), Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France.
Laurent MaveyraudInstitut de Pharmacologie et de Biologie Structurale (IPBS), Université de Toulouse, CNRS, Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (UT3), Toulouse, France.
Georges CzaplickiInstitut de Pharmacologie et de Biologie Structurale (IPBS), Université de Toulouse, CNRS, Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (UT3), Toulouse, France. cgeorge@ipbs.fr.
Institut de Pharmacologie et de Biologie Structurale · FROncogenesis Stress Signaling · FRUniversité Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rational drug design is essential for new drugs to emerge, especially when the structure of a target protein or nucleic acid is known. To that purpose, high-throughput virtual ligand screening campaigns aim at discovering computationally new binding molecules or fragments to modulate particular biomolecular interactions or biological activities, related to a disease process. The structure-based virtual ligand screening process primarily relies on docking methods which allow predicting the binding of a molecule to a biological target structure with a correct conformation and the best possible affinity. The docking method itself is not sufficient as it suffers from several and crucial limitations (lack of full protein flexibility information, no solvation and ion effects, poor scoring functions, and unreliable molecular affinity estimation).At the interface of computer techniques and drug discovery, molecular dynamics (MD) allows introducing protein flexibility before or after a docking protocol, refining the structure of protein-drug complexes in the presence of water, ions, and even in membrane-like environments, describing more precisely the temporal evolution of the biological complex and ranking these complexes with more accurate binding energy calculations. In this chapter, we describe the up-to-date MD, which plays the role of supporting tools in the virtual ligand screening (VS) process.Without a doubt, using docking in combination with MD is an attractive approach in structure-based drug discovery protocols nowadays. It has proved its efficiency through many examples in the literature and is a powerful method to significantly reduce the amount of required wet experimentations (Tarcsay et al, J Chem Inf Model 53:2990-2999, 2013; Barakat et al, PLoS One 7:e51329, 2012; De Vivo et al, J Med Chem 59:4035-4061, 2016; Durrant, McCammon, BMC Biol 9:71-79, 2011; Galeazzi, Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 5:225-240, 2009; Hospital et al, Adv Appl Bioinforma Chem 8:37-47, 2015; Jiang et al, Molecules 20:12769-12786, 2015; Kundu et al, J Mol Graph Model 61:160-174, 2015; Mirza et al, J Mol Graph Model 66:99-107, 2016; Moroy et al, Future Med Chem 7:2317-2331, 2015; Naresh et al, J Mol Graph Model 61:272-280, 2015; Nichols et al, J Chem Inf Model 51:1439-1446, 2011; Nichols et al, Methods Mol Biol 819:93-103, 2012; Okimoto et al, PLoS Comput Biol 5:e1000528, 2009; Rodriguez-Bussey et al, Biopolymers 105:35-42, 2016; Sliwoski et al, Pharmacol Rev 66:334-395, 2014).

Indexed as

Drug DesignMolecular Dynamics SimulationDrug DiscoveryEmotionsLigandsLigandsAffinityClusteringDockingDrug designInteraction energyMolecular dynamicsProtein–ligand complexVirtual screening

Identifiers

PMID37676592
OpenAlexW4386500823

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.