ArticleCommunications biology2024
Classification of likely functional class for ligand binding sites identified from fragment screening.
Article in Communications biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning based approaches for structure activity relationship analysis of heparanase inhibitors.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- FMOPhore for hotspot identification and efficient fragment-to-lead growth strategies.Nature communications · 2026Article
- SwinSite: 3D Structure-Based Prediction of Protein-Ligand Binding Sites Using a Combined Vision Transformer and Convolution Model.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Computational approaches to druggable site identification: Current status and future perspective.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2026Review
- LIGYSIS-web: a resource for the analysis of protein-ligand binding sites.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of methods for the prediction of protein-ligand binding sites.Journal of cheminformatics · 2024Article
- A unified analysis of evolutionary and population constraint in protein domains highlights structural features and pathogenic sites.Communications biology · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Fragment screening is used to identify binding sites and leads in drug discovery, but it is often unclear which binding sites are functionally important. Here, data from 37 experiments, and 1309 protein structures binding to 1601 ligands were analysed. A method to group ligands by binding sites is introduced and sites clustered according to profiles of relative solvent accessibility. This identified 293 unique ligand binding sites, grouped into four clusters (C1-4). C1 includes larger, buried, conserved, and population missense-depleted sites, enriched in known functional sites. C4 comprises smaller, accessible, divergent, missense-enriched sites, depleted in functional sites. A site in C1 is 28 times more likely to be functional than one in C4. Seventeen sites, which to the best of our knowledge are novel, in 13 proteins are identified as likely to be functionally important with examples from human tenascin and 5-aminolevulinate synthase highlighted. A multi-layer perceptron, and K-nearest neighbours model are presented to predict cluster labels for ligand binding sites with an accuracy of 96% and 100%, respectively, so allowing functional classification of sites for proteins not in this set. Our findings will be of interest to those studying protein-ligand interactions and developing new drugs or function modulators.
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.