A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Blind prediction of host-guest binding affinities: a new SAMPL3 challenge. | LitMetric

Blind prediction of host-guest binding affinities: a new SAMPL3 challenge.

J Comput Aided Mol Des

Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, Room# 3224, La Jolla, CA 92093-0736, USA.

Published: May 2012

The computational prediction of protein-ligand binding affinities is of central interest in early-stage drug-discovery, and there is a widely recognized need for improved methods. Low molecular weight receptors and their ligands--i.e., host-guest systems--represent valuable test-beds for such affinity prediction methods, because their small size makes for fast calculations and relatively facile numerical convergence. The SAMPL3 community exercise included the first ever blind prediction challenge for host-guest binding affinities, through the incorporation of 11 new host-guest complexes. Ten participating research groups addressed this challenge with a variety of approaches. Statistical assessment indicates that, although most methods performed well at predicting some general trends in binding affinity, overall accuracy was not high, as all the methods suffered from either poor correlation or high RMS errors or both. There was no clear advantage in using explicit versus implicit solvent models, any particular force field, or any particular approach to conformational sampling. In a few cases, predictions using very similar energy models but different sampling and/or free-energy methods resulted in significantly different results. The protonation states of one host and some guest molecules emerged as key uncertainties beyond the choice of computational approach. The present results have implications for methods development and future blind prediction exercises.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3383923PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10822-012-9554-1DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

blind prediction
12
binding affinities
12
host-guest binding
8
methods
6
host-guest
4
prediction host-guest
4
binding
4
affinities sampl3
4
sampl3 challenge
4
challenge computational
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!