ReviewCurrent medicinal chemistry2026
Binding Specificity and Local Frustration in Structure-based Drug Discovery.
Review in Current medicinal chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining the molecular tolerance-to-damage landscape of SMARCA4 helicase genetic alterations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- AI-Driven Design of Miniproteins as Potential Allosteric Modulators.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- An MD View of Ligand Binding.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Evolution has optimized proteins to balance stability and function by reducing unfavorable energy states, leading to regions of flexibility and frustration on protein surfaces. These locally frustrated regions correspond to functionally important areas, such as active sites and regions for ligand binding and conformational plasticity. Typical strategies of structure-based drug discovery primarily concentrate on enhancing the binding affinity during compound screening and target identification. However, this often overlooks the binding specificity, which is critical for distinguishing specific binding partners from competing ones and avoiding off-target effects. According to the energy landscape theory, optimization of the intrinsic binding specificity involves globally minimizing the frustrations existing in the biomolecular interactions. Recent studies have demonstrated that identifying local frustrations provides a promising approach for screening more specific compounds binding with targets, and quantifying binding specificity complements typical strategies that focus on binding affinity only. This review explores the principles and strategies of computationally quantifying the binding specificity and local frustrations and discusses their applications in structure-based drug discovery. Moreover, given the advancements of artificial intelligence in protein science, this review aims to motivate the integration of AI and available approaches in quantifying the binding specificity and local frustration. We expect that an AI-powered prediction model will accelerate the drug discovery process and improve the success rate of hit compounds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40357784What 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.