2019
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00925
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Free Energies and Entropies of Binding Sites Identified by MixMD Cosolvent Simulations

Abstract: In our recent efforts to map protein surfaces using mixed-solvent molecular dynamics (MixMD), 1 we were able to successfully capture active sites and allosteric sites within the top-four most occupied hotspots. In this study, we describe our approach for estimating the thermodynamic profile of the binding sites identified by MixMD. First, we establish a framework for calculating free energies from MixMD simulations, and we compare our approach to alternative methods. Second, we present a means to obtain a rela… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
24
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
(87 reference statements)
2
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…52 It uses a 3D grid overlapped on a region of interest in a protein surface to determine the location of putative pockets, and calculates a druggability score, i.e., a quantification of how adequate those pockets are to accommodate a small organic molecule. This druggability scoring was inspired by structural bioinformatics methodologies trained on data sets of X-ray crystallography-derived binding sites, 53,54 with the important difference that the druggability estimator was designed to be smooth and continuously differentiable with respect to protein atomic Cartesian coordinates. This enables the use of the JEDI score as a collective variable for biased MD simulations.…”
Section: Mechanisms Of Their Formationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…52 It uses a 3D grid overlapped on a region of interest in a protein surface to determine the location of putative pockets, and calculates a druggability score, i.e., a quantification of how adequate those pockets are to accommodate a small organic molecule. This druggability scoring was inspired by structural bioinformatics methodologies trained on data sets of X-ray crystallography-derived binding sites, 53,54 with the important difference that the druggability estimator was designed to be smooth and continuously differentiable with respect to protein atomic Cartesian coordinates. This enables the use of the JEDI score as a collective variable for biased MD simulations.…”
Section: Mechanisms Of Their Formationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The same region in ERβ was mapped by isopropanol, suggesting the placement of an amphipathic, as opposed to an aromatic, functional group in this isoform, to achieve selective ligand-protein interactions. The lack of probe density at the ERα BF-3 site points towards poor druggability of the site [47], which is indirectly supported by experimental results since inhibitors directed against the AR did not inhibit ERα [13]. The density maps of the BF-3 site of both TRs substantially differ from the ones of other receptors, which reduces the odds for the cross-binding of compounds harboring the proposed density-based pharmacophores.…”
Section: Distinct Pharmacophores Of the Allosteric Sitesmentioning
confidence: 68%
“…We employed druggability simulations (mixed MD cosolvent simulations) to identity druggable sites in the screened/selected target protein TNFAIP3 as well as the three-dimensional (3D) pharmacophore (PH4) models. , Druggability simulations were performed using NAMD and a classical protocol of MD simulations . The DruGUI module of the ProDy application programming interface and Pharmmaker were used to prepare inputs of simulations and to analyze the results. , The generated 3D PH4 models and PDB structure of TNFAIP3 were submitted to the Pharmit server to search against the PubChem database which contains 450 million conformers of 93 million chemicals .…”
Section: Materials and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%