Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From Modeling the binding of diverse ligands within the Ah receptor ligand binding domain (2019) · cites this paper as [42]
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)
- PMC
- PMC2396190
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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