Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 180

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Four-Dimensional Docking: A Fast and Accurate Account of Discrete Receptor Flexibility in Ligand Docking

Open access
Bottegoni, Giovanni, Kufareva, Irina, Totrov, Maxim, Abagyan, Ruben·2009·Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Abstract

Many available methods aimed at incorporating the receptor flexibility in ligand docking are computationally expensive, require a high level of user intervention, and were tested only on benchmarks of limited size and diversity. Here we describe the four-dimensional (4D) docking approach that allows seamless incorporation of receptor conformational ensembles in a single docking simulation and reduces the sampling time while preserving the accuracy of traditional ensemble docking. The approach was tested on a benchmark of 99 therapeutically relevant proteins and 300 diverse ligands (half of them experimental or marketed drugs). The conformational variability of the binding pockets was represented by the available crystallographic data, with the total of 1113 receptor structures. The 4D docking method reproduced the correct ligand binding geometry in 77.3% of the benchmark cases, matching the success rate of the traditional approach but employed on average only one-fourth of the time during the ligand sampling phase.

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/jm8009958

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cited by

See all 180

Metadata

Authors
Bottegoni, G., Kufareva, I., Totrov, M., & Abagyan, R.
Venue
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
Published
2008-12-17
Volume
52
Issue
2
Pages
397-406
ISSN
  • 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-4804
OpenAlex
W2012969029
Cited by
180
References
3
FWCI
20.90
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

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.