10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Docking and chemoinformatic screens for new ligands and targets

      , , ,
      Current Opinion in Biotechnology
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Computer-based docking screens are now widely used to discover new ligands for targets of known structure; in the last two years alone, the discovery of ligands for more than 20 proteins has been reported. Recently, investigators have also turned to predicting new substrates for enzymes of unknown function, taking docking in a wholly new direction. Increasingly, the hit rates, the true-positives, and the false-positives from the docking screens are being compared to those from empirical, high-throughput screens, revealing the strengths, weaknesses, and complementarities of both techniques. The recent efflorescence of GPCR structures has made these quintessential drug targets available to structure-based approaches. Consistent with their 'druggability', the docking screens have returned high hit rates and potent molecules. Finally, in the last several years, an approach almost exactly opposite to docking has also appeared; this pharmacological network approach begins not with the structure of the target but rather those of drug molecules and asks, given a pattern of chemistry in the ligands, what targets may a particular drug bind to? This method, which returns to an older, pharmacology logic, has been surprisingly successful in predicting new 'off-targets' for established drugs.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Current Opinion in Biotechnology
          Current Opinion in Biotechnology
          Elsevier BV
          09581669
          August 2009
          August 2009
          : 20
          : 4
          : 429-436
          Article
          10.1016/j.copbio.2009.08.003
          2766606
          19733475
          4e9b3156-ea50-4121-9fe4-cf15836fb21f
          © 2009

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article