ArticleFrontiers in bioinformatics2026
Computational blueprint and stereochemical validation of a small peptide derived from
Article in Frontiers in bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality among women worldwide, necessitating the development of safer and more targeted therapeutic strategies. This study computationally extends our previous experimental investigation of a peptide derived from Methods: The peptide structure was predicted using PEP-FOLD and its stereochemical quality was assessed using a Ramachandran plot. Molecular docking was performed against ERα and HER2, followed by molecular dynamics simulations to evaluate structural stability. Binding free energy, binding affinity, dissociation constant, principal component analysis (PCA), free energy landscape (FEL), molecular mechanics (MM)/Poisson-Boltzmann surface area (PBSA) calculations, and Results: The predicted peptide model exhibited 84.8% of residues located in the most favoured regions, while 15.2% were located in additionally allowed regions of the Ramachandran plot, indicating satisfactory stereochemical quality. Molecular docking demonstrated favourable interactions with both ERα and HER2, with HER2 showing a marginally more favourable docking score. Molecular dynamics simulations indicated stable peptide-protein complexes throughout the simulation period, as supported by root mean square deviation (RMSD), root mean square fluctuation (RMSF), radius of gyration (Rg), solvent-accessible surface area (SASA), and hydrogen-bond analyses. MM/PBSA calculations predicted stronger binding for the HER2 (1N8Z) complex (ΔG = -28.83 kJ/mol) than for the ERα (3ERT) complex (ΔG = -11.65 kJ/mol), highlighting the complementary nature of docking and dynamic free-energy estimation, which produced different receptor rankings. PCA and FEL analyses further demonstrated stable conformational sampling for both complexes. ADMET predictions suggested favourable peptide-like physicochemical properties while identifying pharmacokinetic and toxicity parameters that require further experimental validation. Conclusion: This computational study suggests that the
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.