Protein–ligand interaction fingerprints for accurate prediction of dissociation rates of p38 MAPK Type II inhibitors

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duo Zhang ◽  
Shuheng Huang ◽  
Hu Mei ◽  
MuliadiYeremia Kevin ◽  
Tingting Shi ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 763-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Chupakhin ◽  
Gilles Marcou ◽  
Igor Baskin ◽  
Alexandre Varnek ◽  
Didier Rognan

2017 ◽  
pp. 1072-1091
Author(s):  
Ali HajiEbrahimi ◽  
Hamidreza Ghafouri ◽  
Mohsen Ranjbar ◽  
Amirhossein Sakhteman

A most challenging part in docking-based virtual screening is the scoring functions implemented in various docking programs in order to evaluate different poses of the ligands inside the binding cavity of the receptor. Precise and trustable measurement of ligand-protein affinity for Structure-Based Virtual Screening (SB-VS) is therefore, an outstanding problem in docking studies. Empirical post-docking filters can be helpful as a way to provide various types of structure-activity information. Different types of interaction have been presented between the ligands and the receptor so far. Based on the diversity and importance of PLIF methods, this chapter will focus on the comparison of different protocols. The advantages and disadvantages of all methods will be discussed explicitly in this chapter as well as future sights for further progress in this field. Different classifications approaches for the protein-ligand interaction fingerprints were also discussed in this chapter.


2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oscar Méndez-Lucio ◽  
Albert J. Kooistra ◽  
Chris de Graaf ◽  
Andreas Bender ◽  
José L. Medina-Franco

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Radifar ◽  
Nunung Yuniarti ◽  
Enade Perdana Istyastono

Identification of Protein-Ligand Interaction Fingerprints (PLIF) has been performed as the rescoring strategy to identify the best pose for the docked poses of indomethacin-(R)-α-ethyl-etanolamide (IMM) in the binding site of cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) from simulations using PLANTS molecular docking software version 1.2 (PLANTS1.2). Instead of using the scoring functions included in the docking software, the strategy presented in this article used external software called PyPLIF that could identify the interactions of the ligand to the amino acid residues in the binding pocket and presents them as binary bitstrings, which subsequently were compared to the interaction bitstrings of the co-crystal ligand pose. The results show that PyPLIF-assisted redocking strategy could select the correct pose much better compared to the pose selection without rescoring. Out of 1000 iterative attempts, PyPLIF-assisted redocking simulations could identify 971 correct poses (more than 95%), while the redocking simulations without PyPLIF could only identify 500 correct poses (50%).These works have also provided us with the initial step of the construction of a valid Structure-Based Virtual Screening (SBVS) protocol to identify COX-1 inhibitors.


Author(s):  
Ali HajiEbrahimi ◽  
Hamidreza Ghafouri ◽  
Mohsen Ranjbar ◽  
Amirhossein Sakhteman

A most challenging part in docking-based virtual screening is the scoring functions implemented in various docking programs in order to evaluate different poses of the ligands inside the binding cavity of the receptor. Precise and trustable measurement of ligand-protein affinity for Structure-Based Virtual Screening (SB-VS) is therefore, an outstanding problem in docking studies. Empirical post-docking filters can be helpful as a way to provide various types of structure-activity information. Different types of interaction have been presented between the ligands and the receptor so far. Based on the diversity and importance of PLIF methods, this chapter will focus on the comparison of different protocols. The advantages and disadvantages of all methods will be discussed explicitly in this chapter as well as future sights for further progress in this field. Different classifications approaches for the protein-ligand interaction fingerprints were also discussed in this chapter.


Author(s):  
Xiaodong Pang ◽  
Linxiang Zhou ◽  
Lily Zhang ◽  
Lina Xu ◽  
Xinyi Zhang

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document