ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2024
G Protein-Coupled Receptor-Ligand Pose and Functional Class Prediction.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Computational approaches to druggable site identification: Current status and future perspective.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) transmembrane protein family members play essential roles in physiology. Numerous pharmaceuticals target GPCRs, and many drug discovery programs utilize virtual screening (VS) against GPCR targets. Improvements in the accuracy of predicting new molecules that bind to and either activate or inhibit GPCR function would accelerate such drug discovery programs. This work addresses two significant research questions. First, do ligand interaction fingerprints provide a substantial advantage over automated methods of binding site selection for classical docking? Second, can the functional status of prospective screening candidates be predicted from ligand interaction fingerprints using a random forest classifier? Ligand interaction fingerprints were found to offer modest advantages in sampling accurate poses, but no substantial advantage in the final set of top-ranked poses after scoring, and, thus, were not used in the generation of the ligand-receptor complexes used to train and test the random forest classifier. A binary classifier which treated agonists, antagonists, and inverse agonists as active and all other ligands as inactive proved highly effective in ligand function prediction in an external test set of GPR31 and TAAR2 candidate ligands with a hit rate of 82.6% actual actives within the set of predicted actives.
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.