Binding of Small-Molecule Ligands to Proteins: “What You See” Is Not Always “What You Get”

By David L. Mobley, Ken A. Dill. Structure, 2009

560 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We review insights from computational studies of affinities of ligands binding to proteins. The power of structural biology is in translating knowledge of protein structures into insights about their forces, binding, and mechanisms. However, the complementary power of computer modeling is in showing “the rest of the story” (i.e., how motions and ensembles and alternative conformers and the entropies and forces that cannot be seen in single molecular structures also contribute to binding affinities). Upon binding to a protein, a ligand can bind in multiple orientations; the protein or ligand can be deformed by the binding event; waters, ions, or cofactors can have unexpected involvement; and conformational or solvation entropies can sometimes play large and otherwise unpredictable roles. Computer modeling is helping to elucidate these factors.

Subfields: Computational Theory and Mathematics, Materials Chemistry, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/75e498efffc664236bcd00cac7eb93b20c29d64b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computational Theory and Mathematics

  1. Patrick Barth
  2. Vijay S. Pande
  3. Yumeng Wang
  4. Joaquin Ambia
  5. David L. Mobley
  6. J. Lai
  7. Chaopeng Shen
  8. Abhinav Vishnu

In Materials Chemistry

  1. Vijay S. Pande
  2. John D. Chodera
  3. Michael R. Shirts
  4. David L. Mobley
  5. Patrick Barth
  6. Yumeng Wang
  7. Joaquin Ambia
  8. J. Lai

In Molecular Biology

  1. David L. Mobley
  2. Vijay S. Pande
  3. Michael R. Shirts
  4. John D. Chodera
  5. Patrick Barth
  6. Yumeng Wang
  7. Joaquin Ambia
  8. J. Lai

Citations in the corpus