↓ Skip to main content

Discovery of Selective Inhibitors Against EBNA1 via High Throughput In Silico Virtual Screening

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Discovery of Selective Inhibitors Against EBNA1 via High Throughput In Silico Virtual Screening
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0010126
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ning Li, Scott Thompson, David C. Schultz, Weiliang Zhu, Hualiang Jiang, Cheng Luo, Paul M. Lieberman

Abstract

Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) latent infection is associated with several human malignancies and is a causal agent of lymphoproliferative diseases during immunosuppression. While inhibitors of herpesvirus DNA polymerases, like gancyclovir, reduce EBV lytic cycle infection, these treatments have limited efficacy for treating latent infection. EBNA1 is an EBV-encoded DNA-binding protein required for viral genome maintenance during latent infection. Here, we report the identification of a new class of small molecules that inhibit EBNA1 DNA binding activity. These compounds were identified by virtual screening of 90,000 low molecular mass compounds using computational docking programs with the solved crystal structure of EBNA1. Four structurally related compounds were found to inhibit EBNA1-DNA binding in biochemical assays with purified EBNA1 protein. Compounds had a range of 20-100 microM inhibition of EBNA1 in fluorescence polarization assays and were further validated for inhibition using electrophoresis mobility shift assays. These compounds exhibited no significant inhibition of an unrelated DNA binding protein. Three of these compounds inhibited EBNA1 transcription activation function in cell-based assays and reduced EBV genome copy number when incubated with a Burkitt lymphoma cell line. These experiments provide a proof-of-principle that virtual screening can be used to identify specific inhibitors of EBNA1 that may have potential for treatment of EBV latent infection.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
China 1 1%
Unknown 62 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 28%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Chemistry 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 19 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2016.
All research outputs
#7,475,808
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#89,115
of 194,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,577
of 95,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#365
of 700 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 95,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 700 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.