2023
DOI: 10.1080/07391102.2023.2173299
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative molecular docking analysis for analyzing the inhibitory effect of Anakinra and Ustekinumab against IL17F

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Further, the evaluated 3D models of virB4 , virB8 and virB9 proteins were then subjected to molecular docking analysis. The molecular operating environment (MOE) was incorporated which has also been widely employed in already reported studies [ 52 54 ]. We particularly selected the induce-fit model to perform this docking analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, the evaluated 3D models of virB4 , virB8 and virB9 proteins were then subjected to molecular docking analysis. The molecular operating environment (MOE) was incorporated which has also been widely employed in already reported studies [ 52 54 ]. We particularly selected the induce-fit model to perform this docking analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Differential expressed genes (DEGs) serve as signatures in the Cmap reference database[24, 26], with DEGs or DEGs-based approaches being the most widely used methods for disease-specific signatures[4, 2934]. Additionally, other methods exist, such as utilizing event-free survival via Cox regression to identify prognosis-related gene signatures[35], exploring disease-related genes through genome-wide association studies (GWAS)[36], conducting transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS)[37], and using hub genes in protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks as queried signatures [38]. Functional annotations databases, text mining, and other methods are also applied to prioritize disease risk genes and generate signatures[39, 40].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Differential expressed genes (DEGs) serve as signatures in the Cmap reference database [24,26] , with DEGs or DEGs-based approaches being the most widely used methods for diseasespeci c signatures [4,[29][30][31][32][33][34] . Additionally, other methods exist, such as utilizing event-free survival via Cox regression to identify prognosis-related gene signatures [35] , exploring disease-related genes through genome-wide association studies (GWAS) [36] , conducting transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) [37] , and using hub genes in protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks as queried signatures [38] . Functional annotations databases, text mining, and other methods are also applied to prioritize disease risk genes and generate signatures [39,40] .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%