The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
DynaDock: A new molecular dynamics‐based algorithm for protein–peptide docking including receptor flexibility
Abstract
Molecular docking programs play an important role in drug development and many well‐established methods exist. However, there are two situations for which the performance of most approaches is still not satisfactory, namely inclusion of receptor flexibility and docking of large, flexible ligands like peptides. In this publication a new approach is presented for docking peptides into flexible receptors. For this purpose a two step procedure was developed: first, the protein–peptide conformational space is scanned and approximate ligand poses are identified and second, the identified ligand poses are refined by a new molecular dynamics‐based method, optimized potential molecular dynamics (OPMD). The OPMD approach uses soft‐core potentials for the protein–peptide interactions and applies a new optimization scheme to the soft‐core potential. Comparison with refinement results obtained by conventional molecular dynamics and a soft‐core scaling approach shows significant improvements in the sampling capability for the OPMD method. Thus, the number of starting poses needed for successful refinement is much lower than for the other methods. The algorithm was evaluated on 15 protein–peptide complexes with 2–16mer peptides. Docking poses with peptide RMSD values <2.10 Å from the equilibrated experimental structures were obtained in all cases. For four systems docking into the unbound receptor structures was performed, leading to peptide RMSD values <2.12 Å. Using a specifically fitted scoring function in 11 of 15 cases the best scoring poses featured a peptide RMSD ≤2.10 Å. Proteins 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Friesner, R. A., Banks, J. L., Murphy, R. B., Halgren, T. A., Klicic, J. J., Mainz, D. T., Repasky, M. P., Knoll, E. H., Shelley, M., Perry, J. K., et al. (2004) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0306430 · Cited by 10,057
Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking 1 1Edited by F. E. Cohen
Jones, G., Willett, P., Glen, R. C., Leach, A. R., & Taylor, R. (1997) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1996.0897 · Cited by 6,763
Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy
Kellenberger, E., Rodrigo, J., Muller, P., & Rognan, D. (2004) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20149 · Cited by 577
Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative
Totrov, M., & Abagyan, R. (2008) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2008.01.004 · Cited by 497
Cited by
Improved Docking of Polypeptides with Glide
Tubert-Brohman, I., Sherman, W., Repasky, M., & Beuming, T. (2013) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci400128m · Cited by 1,308
A Comprehensive Review on Current Advances in Peptide Drug Development and Design
Lee, A. C.-L., Harris, J. L., Khanna, K. K., & Hong, J.-H. (2019) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms20102383 · Cited by 686
Use of molecular docking computational tools in drug discovery
(2021) · Progress in Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1016/bs.pmch.2021.01.004 · Cited by 621
Latest developments in molecular docking: 2010–2011 in review
Yuriev, E., & Ramsland, P. A. (2013) · Journal of Molecular Recognition · doi:10.1002/jmr.2266 · Cited by 344
Protein-peptide docking: opportunities and challenges
Ciemny, M., Kurcinski, M., Kamel, K., Kolinski, A., Alam, N., Schueler-Furman, O., & Kmiecik, S. (2018) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2018.05.006 · Cited by 306
Metadata
- Authors
- Antes, I.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-12-16
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1084-1104
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2115133023
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 5.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.