Title |
Computational Design of Ligand Binding Proteins
|
---|---|
Published by |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
|
DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-3569-7 |
Pubmed ID | |
ISBNs |
978-1-4939-3567-3, 978-1-4939-3569-7
|
Authors |
Roche, Daniel Barry, McGuffin, Liam James |
Editors |
Barry L. Stoddard |
Abstract |
Protein-ligand binding site prediction methods aim to predict, from amino acid sequence, protein-ligand interactions, putative ligands, and ligand binding site residues using either sequence information, structural information, or a combination of both. In silico characterization of protein-ligand interactions has become extremely important to help determine a protein's functionality, as in vivo-based functional elucidation is unable to keep pace with the current growth of sequence databases. Additionally, in vitro biochemical functional elucidation is time-consuming, costly, and may not be feasible for large-scale analysis, such as drug discovery. Thus, in silico prediction of protein-ligand interactions must be utilized to aid in functional elucidation. Here, we briefly discuss protein function prediction, prediction of protein-ligand interactions, the Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction (CASP) and the Continuous Automated EvaluatiOn (CAMEO) competitions, along with their role in shaping the field. We also discuss, in detail, our cutting-edge web-server method, FunFOLD for the structurally informed prediction of protein-ligand interactions. Furthermore, we provide a step-by-step guide on using the FunFOLD web server and FunFOLD3 downloadable application, along with some real world examples, where the FunFOLD methods have been used to aid functional elucidation. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 44% |
Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
Scientists | 4 | 44% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 7 | 12% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
Other | 7 | 12% |
Unknown | 26 | 44% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 24% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 8% |
Engineering | 3 | 5% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
Chemistry | 2 | 3% |
Other | 6 | 10% |
Unknown | 27 | 46% |