ArticleScientific reports2025
Deciphering highly potent natural abscisic acid agonists for binding to pyrabactin resistance 1 receptor through computational approaches.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Advances and opportunities for computational interrogation of plant proteins.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Abscisic acid (ABA) agonists bind to the same receptors as ABA in plant cells and exhibit similar physiological effects. Even though synthetic ABA agonists like Pyrabactin, Quinabactin, Cyanabactin, and Opabactin can bind to the PYR1 receptor, no plant-derived natural ABA agonists have been reported. The present study explored the highly potent natural ABA agonists through the target inhibition efficacy of phytochemicals from the different parts of the Ficus carica plant against the binding of pyrabactin resistance 1 (PYR1) receptor (PDB: 3K3K) using computational approaches. Molecular docking analysis confirmed that among the 99 phytochemicals, five phytochemicals, such as Chlorogenic acid, Rutin, Quercetin, Schaftoside, and Imperatorin, were potentially bound at the active binding site of the PYR1 receptor target with the best docking scores below - 8.0 kcal/mol compared to other compounds and positive control ABA. Further, the ABA showed a - 7.6 kcal/mol docking score against the PYR1 receptor. Based on the best docking scores, out of 99 phytochemicals, five lead phytochemicals (viz., Chlorogenic acid, Rutin, Quercetin, Schaftoside and Imperatorin) and positive control (ABA) were further subjected to molecular dynamics (MD) simulation, principal component analysis (PCA), free energy landscape (FEL)and Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA) analysis. The results have proved that Rutin and Schaftoside were found to form the energetically stable complex with the PYR1 receptor at both 300 K and 325 K. Moreover, the result of the MM/PBSA technique indicated that Rutin and Schaftoside bound PYR1 receptor complexes exhibited lower binding free energy compared to ABA at both 300 K and 325 K. Considering all the results, the study concluded that Rutin and Schaftoside phytochemicals can be highly potent natural ABA agonists with considerable efficacy in binding to the PYR1 receptor active site. The study further needs the experimental validation of these phytochemicals (such as Rutin and Schaftoside) to understand their PYR1 receptor binding potential and for their use in sustainable agriculture.
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.