ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2025
End-Point Affinity Estimation of Galectin Ligands by Classical and Semiempirical Quantum Mechanical Potentials.
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Computer-Aided Drug Design: Advances in GPCR Natural Ligand Discovery.Cell biochemistry and biophysics · 2026Review
- Quantum-Driven High-Throughput Docking: Advances in Molecular Scoring and Drug Discovery.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Review
- Profiling arbutin as a potent cholinesterase and GSK-3β inhibitor and evaluating its cytotoxicity in SH-SY5Y cells for Alzheimer's disease therapy.Turkish journal of biology = Turk biyoloji dergisi · 2026Article
- Design of Potent Mannose-6-Phosphate Derivatives as Ligands for CI-M6P/IGF2R Using Fluorescence Polarization Assay.Chemistry (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025Article
- Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships for Human Galectin-3 Inhibitors: Insights from Quantum Chemical Interaction Energy Terms.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of quantum mechanical potentials in protein-ligand affinity prediction is becoming increasingly feasible with growing computational power. To move forward, validation of such potentials on real-world challenges is necessary. To this end, we have collated an extensive set of over a thousand galectin inhibitors with known affinities and docked them into galectin-3. The docked poses were then used to systematically evaluate several modern force fields and semiempirical quantum mechanical (SQM) methods up to the tight-binding level under consistent computational workflow. Implicit solvation models available with the tested methods were used to simulate solvation effects. Overall, the best methods in this study achieved a Pearson correlation of 0.7-0.8 between the computed and experimental affinities. There were differences between the tested methods in their ability to rank ligands across the entire ligand set as well as within subsets of structurally similar ligands. A major discrepancy was observed for a subset of ligands that bind to the protein via a halogen bond, which was clearly challenging for all the tested methods. The inclusion of an entropic term calculated by the rigid-rotor-harmonic-oscillator approximation at SQM level slightly worsened correlation with experiment but brought the calculated affinities closer to experimental values. We also found that the success of the prediction strongly depended on the solvation model. Furthermore, we provide an in-depth analysis of the individual energy terms and their effect on the overall prediction accuracy.
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.