Cited by 497Computational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Structure and DynamicsReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling

Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative

Open access
Totrov, Maxim, Abagyan, Ruben·2008·Current Opinion in Structural Biology

Abstract

State of the art docking algorithms predict an incorrect binding pose for about 50-70% of all ligands when only a single fixed receptor conformation is considered. In many more cases, lack of receptor flexibility results in meaningless ligand binding scores, even when the correct pose is obtained. Incorporating conformational rearrangements of the receptor binding pocket into predictions of both ligand binding pose and binding score is crucial for improving structure-based drug design and virtual ligand screening methodologies. However, direct modeling of protein binding site flexibility remains challenging because of the large conformational space that must be sampled, and difficulties remain in constructing a suitably accurate energy function. Here we show that using multiple fixed receptor conformations, either experimentally determined by crystallography or NMR, or computationally generated, is a practical shortcut that may improve docking calculations. In several cases, such an approach has led to experimentally validated predictions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.sbi.2008.01.004

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Receptor conformational variability involved in binding can be effectively addressed by docking to an ensemble of static receptor conformations derived experimentally, computationally, or from protein structure prediction.

    “More generally, the receptor conformational variability involved in binding can be effectively addressed by docking to an ensemble of static receptor conformations (ensemble-docking technique) derived experimentally, or computationally (e.g. by MD simulations), or from protein structure prediction42.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 497

Authors
Totrov, M., & Abagyan, R.
Affiliations
  • Molsoft (United States) (US)
  • Scripps Research Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Totrov, Maxim
  • Abagyan, Ruben
Venue
Current Opinion in Structural Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-04
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
178-184
ISSN
0959-440X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2127290087
Cited by
497
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 41
FWCI
4.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Structural Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM074832, R01GM071872)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Keywords
flexible ligand docking, structure-based drug design, virtual ligand screening, conformational change
MeSH terms
Drug Evaluation, Preclinical, Ligands, Models, Molecular, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Drug Design

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