Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 462

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Molecular Docking and High-Throughput Screening for Novel Inhibitors of Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase-1B

Open access
Doman, Thompson N., McGovern, Susan L., Witherbee, Bryan J., Kasten, Thomas P., Kurumbail, Ravi, Stallings, William C., Connolly, Daniel T., Shoichet, Brian K.·2002·Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Abstract

High-throughput screening (HTS) of compound libraries is used to discover novel leads for drug development. When a structure is available for the target, computer-based screening using molecular docking may also be considered. The two techniques have rarely been used together on the same target. The opportunity to do so presented itself in a project to discover novel inhibitors for the enzyme protein tyrosine phosphatase-1B (PTP1B), a tyrosine phosphatase that has been implicated as a key target for type II diabetes. A corporate library of approximately 400 000 compounds was screened using high-throughput experimental techniques for compounds that inhibited PTP1B. Concurrently, molecular docking was used to screen approximately 235 000 commercially available compounds against the X-ray crystallographic structure of PTP1B, and 365 high-scoring molecules were tested as inhibitors of the enzyme. Of approximately 400 000 molecules tested in the high-throughput experimental assay, 85 (0.021%) inhibited the enzyme with IC50 values less than 100 microM; the most active had an IC50 value of 4.2 microM. Of the 365 molecules suggested by molecular docking, 127 (34.8%) inhibited PTP1B with IC50 values less than 100 microM; the most active of these had an IC50 of 1.7 microM. Structure-based docking therefore enriched the hit rate by 1700-fold over random screening. The hits from both the high-throughput and docking screens were dissimilar from phosphotyrosine, the canonical substrate group for PTP1B; the two hit lists were also very different from each other. Surprisingly, the docking hits were judged to be more druglike than the HTS hits. The diversity of both hit lists and their dissimilarity from each other suggest that docking and HTS may be complementary techniques for lead discovery.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jm010548w

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 41 references

Cited by

See all 462

Metadata

Authors
Doman, T. N., McGovern, S. L., Witherbee, B. J., Kasten, T. P., Kurumbail, R., Stallings, W. C., Connolly, D. T., & Shoichet, B. K.
Venue
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
Published
2002-04-20
Volume
45
Issue
11
Pages
2213-2221
ISSN
  • 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-4804
OpenAlex
W2114212850
Cited by
462
References
41
FWCI
25.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Molecular Docking and High-Throughput Screening for Novel Inhibitors of Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase-1B. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jm010548w
The paper
Doman, T. N., McGovern, S. L., Witherbee, B. J., Kasten, T. P., Kurumbail, R., Stallings, W. C., Connolly, D. T., & Shoichet, B. K. (2002). Molecular Docking and High-Throughput Screening for Novel Inhibitors of Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase-1B. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm010548w

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.