1995
DOI: 10.1002/pro.5560040923
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A preference-based free-energy parameterization of enzyme-inhibitor binding. Applications to HIV-1-protease inhibitor design

Abstract: The interface between protein receptor-ligand complexes has been studied with respect to their binary interatomic interactions. Crystal structure data have been used to catalogue surfaces buried by atoms from each member of a bound complex and determine a statistical preference for pairs of amino-acid atoms. A simple free energy model of the receptor-ligand system is constructed from these atom-atom preferences and used to assess the energetic importance of interfacial interactions. The free energy approximati… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

4
94
0
2

Year Published

1998
1998
2004
2004

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 121 publications
(100 citation statements)
references
References 153 publications
4
94
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Each of these possible binding arrangements is further refined to determine those positions with the maximum binding strength between ligand and target protein. A previously published model of ligand binding (18) was used to select the best binding geometries. This model is based on the atomic preferences of adjacent surfaces buried within a binding interface (18).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Each of these possible binding arrangements is further refined to determine those positions with the maximum binding strength between ligand and target protein. A previously published model of ligand binding (18) was used to select the best binding geometries. This model is based on the atomic preferences of adjacent surfaces buried within a binding interface (18).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A previously published model of ligand binding (18) was used to select the best binding geometries. This model is based on the atomic preferences of adjacent surfaces buried within a binding interface (18). The model has been shown to predict accurately ligand binding strengths and assess the relative contributions of atomic interactions within a binding interface (17).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Docking studies were completed with a computational method developed for placing candidate ligands into possible binding sites. Previous calibration of this procedure found the correct binding position for over 93% of the known crystal complexes studies at the time of analysis (38,39). Docking is achieved in three successive steps, each with increasing demands for scoring acceptable binding positions.…”
Section: Fig 2 Coomassie Blue-stained Membrane (Track A) and Its Aumentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A range of different approaches have been used; for instance FEP [4][5][6], LIEA [7,8] and empirical methods such as QSAR [9], CoMFA [10,11], 'master equation' approaches [12][13][14], total energy correlation [15], 'knowledge-based' methods [16][17][18][19] and methods like CScore [20] and X-Score [21] which combine different approaches. The empirical methods, often called scoring functions, are directly derived from observed inhibition strengths by correlating these strengths to components that are thought to be important for the binding process.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%