ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Can Molecular Docking Predict Guest Orientation in β-Cyclodextrin? A Cross-Docking and DFT Refinement Study.
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Abstract
Molecular docking is widely used to predict cyclodextrin host-guest structures, yet its ability to reproduce the directional orientation of asymmetric guests within the β-cyclodextrin (β-CD) cavity has rarely been evaluated systematically. Here, 20 crystallographically characterized 1:1 β-CD complexes containing asymmetric 1,4-disubstituted benzene guests were selected from the Cambridge Structural Database. Each guest was docked into each of 20 experimentally derived β-CD conformations, yielding 7916 retained poses. Poses reproducing the crystallographic direction of inclusion were classified as Up, whereas the opposite orientation was classified as Down. Across the complete dataset, approximately 26% of poses were Up, with guest-dependent frequencies ranging from 5% to 83%. Importantly, only one β-CD conformation generated Up poses for all 20 guests, whereas the complete receptor set sampled at least one crystal-consistent pose for every compound. However, GlideScore-based orientation recovery was 65% for Top-1, 95% for Top-2, and 100% for Top-3, demonstrating that successful sampling does not necessarily ensure correct top-ranked prediction. Selected poses were subsequently optimized using dispersion-corrected DFT. DFT-based energetic ranking did not consistently favour the crystallographic orientation and could either decrease or increase guest heavy-atom RMSD. Overall, the results demonstrate that reliable validation of β-CD docking requires explicit separation of pose generation, pose ranking, energetic refinement, and structural similarity, and support the use of structurally diverse crystal-derived receptor sets to broaden orientational sampling.
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.