ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2024
Conservation of Hot Spots and Ligand Binding Sites in Protein Models by AlphaFold2.
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A critical appraisal of structure-based virtual screening, binding free energy methods, and AI-driven molecular design across the evolving computational landscape of drug discovery.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2026Review
- From Genome Inspection to Precision Agrochemicals: A Structure-Based Antivirulence Roadmap for Sustainable Crop Protection againstJournal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2026Review
- bindNode24: Competitive binding residue prediction with 60 % smaller model.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Which cryptic sites are feasible drug targets?Drug discovery today · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The neural network-based program AlphaFold2 (AF2) provides high accuracy structure prediction for a large fraction of globular proteins. An important question is whether these models are accurate enough for reliably docking small ligands. Several recent papers and the results of CASP15 reveal that local conformational errors reduce the success rates of direct ligand docking. Here, we focus on the ability of the models to conserve the location of binding hot spots, regions on the protein surface that significantly contribute to the binding free energy of the protein-ligand interaction. Clusters of hot spots predict the location and even the druggability of binding sites, and hence are important for computational drug discovery. The hot spots are determined by protein mapping that is based on the distribution of small fragment-sized probes on the protein surface and is less sensitive to local conformation than docking. Mapping models taken from the AlphaFold Protein Structure Database show that identifying binding sites is more reliable than docking, but the success rates are still 5% to 10% lower than based on mapping X-ray structures. The drop in accuracy is particularly large for models of multidomain proteins. However, both the model binding sites and the mapping results can be substantially improved by generating AF2 models for the ligand binding domains of interest rather than the entire proteins and even more if using forced sampling with multiple initial seeds. The mapping of such models tends to reach the accuracy of results obtained by mapping the X-ray structures.
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.