The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Common Reference Framework for Analyzing/Comparing Proteins and Ligands. Fingerprints for Ligands And Proteins (FLAP): Theory and Application
Abstract
A fast new algorithm (Fingerprints for Ligands And Proteins or FLAP) able to describe small molecules and protein structures using a common reference framework of four-point pharmacophore fingerprints and a molecular-cavity shape is described in detail. The procedure starts by using the GRID force field to calculate molecular interaction fields, which are then used to identify particular target locations where an energetic interaction with small molecular features would be very favorable. The target points thus calculated are then used by FLAP to build all possible four-point pharmacophores present in the given target site. A related approach can be applied to small molecules, using directly the GRID atom types to identify pharmacophoric features, and this complementary description of the target and ligand then leads to several novel applications. FLAP can be used for selectivity studies or similarity analyses in order to compare macromolecules without superposing them. Protein families can be compared and clustered into target classes, without bias from previous knowledge and without requiring protein superposition, alignment, or knowledge-based comparison. FLAP can be used effectively for ligand-based virtual screening and structure-based virtual screening, with the pharmacophore molecular recognition. Finally, the new method can calculate descriptors for chemometric analysis and can initiate a docking procedure. This paper presents the background to the new procedure and includes case studies illustrating several relevant applications of the new approach.
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
Announcing the worldwide Protein Data Bank
Berman, H., Henrick, K., & Nakamura, H. (2003) · Nature Structural & Molecular Biology · doi:10.1038/nsb1203-980 · Cited by 3,093
Bissantz, C., Folkers, G., & Rognan, D. (2000) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm001044l · Cited by 740
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
Cited by
Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery
Hopkins, A. L. (2008) · Nature Chemical Biology · doi:10.1038/nchembio.118 · Cited by 4,622
Next generation 3D pharmacophore modeling
Schaller, D., Šribar, D., Noonan, T., Deng, L., Nguyen, T. N., Pach, S., Machalz, D., Bermudez, M., & Wolber, G. (2020) · WIREs Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.1468 · Cited by 269
Targeted scoring functions for virtual screening.
Seifert, M. H. J. (2009) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2009.03.013 · Cited by 76
Bruno, S., Bersani, M., Astore, S., Chiabotto, G., Barge, A., Binello, A., & Spyrakis, F. (2022) · Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.tox.2022.153257 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Baroni, M., Cruciani, G., Sciabola, S., Perruccio, F., & Mason, J. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2007-01-09
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 279-294
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- OpenAlex
- W2204075485
- Cited by
- 439
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 27.40
- 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.