ArticlePloS one2024
An in silico investigation on the binding site preference of PD-1 and PD-L1 for designing antibodies for targeted cancer therapy.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Bridging BET bromodomain and immune checkpoint inhibitors through generative bioorganic frameworks for next-generation cancer immunotherapy.RSC medicinal chemistry · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer control and treatment remain a significant challenge in cancer therapy and recently immune checkpoints has considered as a novel treatment strategy to develop anti-cancer drugs. Many cancer types use the immune checkpoints and its ligand, PD-1/PD-L1 pathway, to evade detection and destruction by the immune system, which is associated with altered effector function of PD-1 and PD-L1 overexpression on cancer cells to deactivate T cells. In recent years, mAbs have been employed to block immune checkpoints, therefore normalization of the anti-tumor response has enabled the scientists to develop novel biopharmaceuticals. In vivo affinity maturation of antibodies in targeted therapy has sometimes failed, and current experimental methods cannot accommodate the accurate structural details of protein-protein interactions. Therefore, determining favorable binding sites on the protein surface for modulator design of these interactions is a major challenge. In this study, we used the in silico methods to identify favorable binding sites on the PD-1 and PD-L1 and to optimize mAb variants on a large scale. At first, all the binding areas on PD-1 and PD-L1 have been identified. Then, using the RosettaDesign protocol, thousands of antibodies have been generated for 11 different regions on PD-1 and PD-L1 and then the designs with higher stability, affinity, and shape complementarity were selected. Next, molecular dynamics simulations and MM-PBSA analysis were employed to understand the dynamic, structural features of the complexes and measure the binding affinity of the final designs. Our results suggest that binding sites 1, 3 and 6 on PD-1 and binding sites 9 and 11 on PD-L1 can be regarded as the most appropriate sites for the inhibition of PD-1-PD-L1 interaction by the designed antibodies. This study provides comprehensive information regarding the potential binding epitopes on PD-1 which could be considered as hotspots for designing potential biopharmaceuticals. We also showed that mutations in the CDRs regions will rearrange the interaction pattern between the designed antibodies and targets (PD-1 and PD-L1) with improved affinity to effectively inhibit protein-protein interaction and block the immune checkpoint.
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.