4.8 Article

KIDFamMap: a database of kinase-inhibitor-disease family maps for kinase inhibitor selectivity and binding mechanisms

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 41, 期 D1, 页码 D430-D440

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gks1218

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Council
  2. Ministry of Education and National Health Research Institutes [NHRI-EX100-10009PI]
  3. 'Center for Bioinformatics Research of Aiming for the Top University Program' of the National Chiao Tung University
  4. Ministry of Education, Taiwan
  5. National Core Facility Program for Biotechnology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kinases play central roles in signaling pathways and are promising therapeutic targets for many diseases. Designing selective kinase inhibitors is an emergent and challenging task, because kinases share an evolutionary conserved ATP-binding site. KIDFamMap (http://gemdock.life.nctu.edu.tw/KIDFamMap/) is the first database to explore kinase-inhibitor families (KIFs) and kinase-inhibitor-disease (KID) relationships for kinase inhibitor selectivity and mechanisms. This database includes 1208 KIFs, 962 KIDs, 55 603 kinase-inhibitor interactions (KIIs), 35 788 kinase inhibitors, 399 human protein kinases, 339 diseases and 638 disease allelic variants. Here, a KIF can be defined as follows: (i) the kinases in the KIF with significant sequence similarity, (ii) the inhibitors in the KIF with significant topology similarity and (iii) the KIIs in the KIF with significant interaction similarity. The KIIs within a KIF are often conserved on some consensus KIDFamMap anchors, which represent conserved interactions between the kinase subsites and consensus moieties of their inhibitors. Our experimental results reveal that the members of a KIF often possess similar inhibition profiles. The KIDFamMap anchors can reflect kinase conformations types, kinase functions and kinase inhibitor selectivity. We believe that KIDFamMap provides biological insights into kinase inhibitor selectivity and binding mechanisms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据