ArticlePloS one2026
Computational identification of natural CXCR4-binding candidates relevant to endometriosis and ovarian cancer progression.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endometriosis and ovarian cancer share invasive, inflammatory, and pro-survival mechanisms in which CXCR4 signaling may play an important role, yet phytochemical modulators of this receptor remain insufficiently characterized. This study addressed that gap by integrating receptor reconstruction, ligand-guided docking, pharmacokinetic and toxicity prediction, pharmacophore mapping, density functional theory, replicated membrane-embedded molecular dynamics, and MM/GBSA analysis. A native human CXCR4 model was generated using SWISS-MODEL with 98.2% template coverage and 100% sequence identity, while the co-crystallized IT1t ligand defined the docking cavity. Eighteen phytochemicals were screened, and naringenin achieved the most favorable predicted docking score (-6.361 kcal/mol), exceeding apigenin (-5.927 kcal/mol) and IT1t (-5.155 kcal/mol). Naringenin formed predicted interactions with Tyr116, Arg188, and Tyr255, showed acceptable drug-likeness, solubility, and gastrointestinal absorption, and displayed a wider HOMO-LUMO gap than apigenin. Two independent 100 ns simulations of the CXCR4 complexes with naringenin, apigenin, and IT1t indicated comparatively consistent structural behavior for naringenin, supported by RMSD, SASA, radius of gyration, hydrogen-bond, PCA, FEL, and DCCM analyses. MM/GBSA estimates were also more favorable for naringenin than apigenin across both replicas. Its predicted LD50 was 2000 mg/kg (toxicity class 4), emphasizing that favorable receptor interactions do not establish safety and require experimental toxicological assessment during further preclinical development. Collectively, naringenin emerged as the most coherent in silico prioritized CXCR4-binding candidate. However, the absence of receptor-binding assays, functional validation, and in vivo confirmation remains a major limitation.
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.