ArticlePeerJ2024
Virtual screening of flavonoids as potential RIPK1 inhibitors for neurodegeneration therapy.
Article in PeerJ, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discovery of a novel Keap1 inhibitor for neurodegeneration through virtual screening and molecular dynamics simulations.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Virtual Screening of Small Molecules Targeting BCL2 with Machine Learning, Molecular Docking, and MD Simulation.Biomolecules · 2024Article
- Discovery of a Novel Chemo-Type for TAAR1 Agonism via Molecular Modeling.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Global prevalence of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease is increasing gradually, whereas approvals of successful therapeutics for central nervous system disorders are inadequate. Accumulating evidence suggests pivotal roles of the receptor-interacting serine/threonine-protein kinase 1 (RIPK1) in modulating neuroinflammation and necroptosis. Discoveries of potent small molecule inhibitors for RIPK1 with favorable pharmacokinetic properties could thus address the unmet medical needs in treating neurodegeneration. Methods: In a structure-based virtual screening, we performed site-specific molecular docking of 4,858 flavonoids against the kinase domain of RIPK1 using AutoDock Vina. We predicted physicochemical descriptors of the top ligands using the SwissADME webserver. Binding interactions of the best ligands and the reference ligand L8D were validated using replicated 500-ns Gromacs molecular dynamics simulations and free energy calculations. Results: From Vina docking, we shortlisted the top 20 flavonoids with the highest binding affinities, ranging from -11.7 to -10.6 kcal/mol. Pharmacokinetic profiling narrowed down the list to three orally bioavailable and blood-brain-barrier penetrant flavonoids: Nitiducarpin, Pinocembrin 7-O-benzoate, and Paratocarpin J. Next, trajectories of molecular dynamics simulations of the top protein-ligand complexes were analyzed for binding interactions. The root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) was 1.191 Å (±0.498 Å), 1.725 Å (±0.828 Å), 1.923 Å (±0.942 Å), 0.972 Å (±0.155 Å) for Nitiducarpin, Pinocembrin 7-O-benzoate, Paratocarpin J, and L8D, respectively. The radius of gyration (Rg) was 2.034 nm (±0.015 nm), 2.0.39 nm (± 0.025 nm), 2.053 nm (±0.021 nm), 2.037 nm (±0.016 nm) for Nitiducarpin, Pinocembrin 7-O-benzoate, Paratocarpin J, and L8D, respectively. The solvent accessible surface area (SASA) was 159.477 nm Conclusion: Our target-based virtual screening identified three flavonoids as strong RIPK1 inhibitors, with Nitiducarpin exhibiting the most potent inhibitory potential. Future
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.