Chapter title |
Molecular Dynamics as a Tool for Virtual Ligand Screening
|
---|---|
Chapter number | 9 |
Book title |
Computational Drug Discovery and Design
|
Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2018
|
DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-7756-7_9 |
Pubmed ID | |
Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-7755-0, 978-1-4939-7756-7
|
Authors |
Grégory Menchon, Laurent Maveyraud, Georges Czaplicki, Menchon, Grégory, Maveyraud, Laurent, Czaplicki, Georges |
Abstract |
Rational drug design is essential for new drugs to emerge, especially when the structure of a target protein or catalytic enzyme is known experimentally. To that purpose, high-throughput virtual ligand screening campaigns aim at discovering computationally new binding molecules or fragments to inhibit a particular protein interaction or biological activity. The virtual ligand screening process often relies on docking methods which allow predicting the binding of a molecule into a biological target structure with a correct conformation and the best possible affinity. The docking method itself is not sufficient as it suffers from several and crucial limitations (lack of protein flexibility information, no solvation effects, poor scoring functions, and unreliable molecular affinity estimation).At the interface of computer techniques and drug discovery, molecular dynamics (MD) allows introducing protein flexibility before or after a docking protocol, refining the structure of protein-drug complexes in the presence of water, ions and even in membrane-like environments, and ranking complexes with more accurate binding energy calculations. In this chapter we describe the up-to-date MD protocols that are mandatory supporting tools in the virtual ligand screening (VS) process. Using docking in combination with MD is one of the best computer-aided drug design protocols nowadays. It has proved its efficiency through many examples, described below. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Turkey | 1 | 50% |
Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
Researcher | 5 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
Professor | 2 | 5% |
Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
Other | 4 | 11% |
Unknown | 17 | 45% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 21% |
Chemistry | 5 | 13% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 17 | 45% |