Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 303

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Calculations of antibody-antigen interactions: microscopic and semi-microscopic evaluation of the free energies of binding of phosphorylcholine analogs to McPC603

Lee, Frederick S., Chu, Zhen-Tao, Bolger, Michael B., Warshel, Arieh·1992·"Protein Engineering, Design and Selection"

Abstract

The study of antibody-antigen interactions should greatly benefit from the development of quantitative models for the evaluation of binding free energies in proteins. The present work addresses this challenge by considering the test case of the binding free energies of phosphorylcholine analogs to the murine myeloma protein McPC603. This includes the evaluation of the differential binding energy as well as the absolute binding energies and their corresponding electrostatic contributions. Four different approaches are examined: the Protein Dipoles Langevin Dipoles (PDLD) method, the semi-microscopic PDLD (PDLD/S) method, a free energy perturbation (FEP) method based on an adiabatic charging procedure and a linear response approximation that accelerates the FEP calculation. The PDLD electrostatic calculations are augmented by estimates of the relevant hydrophobic and steric contributions. The determination of the hydrophobic energy involves an approach which considers the modification of the effective surface area of the solute by local field effects. The steric contributions are analyzed in terms of the corresponding reorganization energies. This treatment, which considers the protein as a harmonic system, views the steric forces as the restoring forces for the electrostatic interactions. The FEP method is found to give unreliable results with regular cut-off radii and starts to give quantitative results only in very expensive treatment with very large cut-off radii. The PDLD and PDLD/S methods are much faster than the FEP approach and give reasonable results for both the relative and absolute binding energies. The speed and simplicity of the PDLD/S method make it an effective strategy for interactive docking studies and indeed such an option is incorporated in the program MOLARIS. A component analysis of the different energy contributions of the FEP treatment and a similar PDLD analysis indicate that electrostatic effects provide the largest contribution to the differential binding energy, while the hydrophobic and steric contributions are much smaller. This finding lends further support to the idea that electrostatic interactions play a major role in determining the antigen specificity of McPC603.

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 · 10.1093/protein/5.3.215

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.

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

Cited by

See all 303

Metadata

Authors
Lee, F. S., Chu, Z.-T., Bolger, M. B., & Warshel, A.
Venue
"Protein Engineering, Design and Selection"
Published
1992
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
215-228
ISSN
  • 0269-2139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-0126
  • 1741-0134
OpenAlex
W2031972197
Cited by
303
References
0
FWCI
9.31
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

How to cite

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

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Calculations of antibody-antigen interactions: microscopic and semi-microscopic evaluation of the free energies of binding of phosphorylcholine analogs to McPC603. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/protein/5.3.215
The paper
Lee, F. S., Chu, Z.-T., Bolger, M. B., & Warshel, A. (1992). Calculations of antibody-antigen interactions: microscopic and semi-microscopic evaluation of the free energies of binding of phosphorylcholine analogs to McPC603. "Protein Engineering, Design and Selection". https://doi.org/10.1093/protein/5.3.215

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.