The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ligand binding to protein-binding pockets with wet and dry regions
Open accessAbstract
Biological processes often depend on protein–ligand binding events, yet accurate calculation of the associated energetics remains as a significant challenge of central importance to structure-based drug design. Recently, we have proposed that the displacement of unfavorable waters by the ligand, replacing them with groups complementary to the protein surface, is the principal driving force for protein–ligand binding, and we have introduced the WaterMap method to account this effect. However, in spite of the adage “nature abhors vacuum,” one can occasionally observe situations in which a portion of the receptor active site is so unfavorable for water molecules that a void is formed there. In this paper, we demonstrate that the presence of dry regions in the receptor has a nontrivial effect on ligand binding affinity, and suggest that such regions may represent a general motif for molecular recognition between the dry region in the receptor and the hydrophobic groups in the ligands. With the introduction of a term attributable to the occupation of the dry regions by ligand atoms, combined with the WaterMap calculation, we obtain excellent agreement with experiment for the prediction of relative binding affinities for a number of congeneric ligand series binding to the major urinary protein receptor. In addition, WaterMap when combined with the cavity contribution is more predictive than at least one specific implementation [Abel R, Young T, Farid R, Berne BJ, Friesner RA (2008)J Am Chem Soc 130:2817–2831] of the popular MM-GBSA approach to binding affinity calculation.
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
Massova, I., & Kollman, P. A. (2000) · Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design · doi:10.1023/a:1008763014207 · Cited by 1,015
Structural basis of pheromone binding to mouse major urinary protein (MUP‐I)
Timm, D. E., Baker, L. J., Mueller, H., Zidek, L., & Novotny, M. V. (2001) · Protein Science · doi:10.1110/ps.52201 · Cited by 109
Cited by
Snyder, P. W., Mecinović, J., Moustakas, D. T., Thomas, S. W., Harder, M., Mack, E. T., Lockett, M. R., Héroux, A., Sherman, W., & Whitesides, G. M. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1114107108 · Cited by 357
WScore: a flexible and accurate treatment of explicit water molecules in ligand-receptor docking.
Murphy, R. B., Repasky, M. P., Greenwood, J. R., Tubert-Brohman, I., Jerome, S., Annabhimoju, R., Boyles, N. A., Schmitz, C. D., Abel, R., Farid, R., et al. (2016) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00131 · Cited by 89
Self-citationWater, water, everywhere… It’s time to stop and think.
Bodnarchuk, M. S. (2016) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2016.05.009 · Cited by 81
Yang, Y., Lightstone, F. C., & Wong, S. E. (2013) · Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery · doi:10.1517/17460441.2013.749853 · Cited by 65
Improving the Accuracy of Protein Thermostability Predictions for Single Point Mutations
Duan, J., Lupyan, D., & Wang, L. (2020) · Biophysical Journal · doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2020.05.020 · Cited by 63
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, L., Berne, B. J., & Friesner, R. A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2011-01-04
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1326-1330
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2074076945
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.42
- 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: Ligand binding to protein-binding pockets with wet and dry regions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1016793108
- The paper
- Wang, L., Berne, B. J., & Friesner, R. A. (2011). Ligand binding to protein-binding pockets with wet and dry regions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016793108
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.