4.6 Article

Large-scale analysis of water stability in bromodomain binding pockets with grand canonical Monte Carlo

期刊

COMMUNICATIONS CHEMISTRY
卷 1, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s42004-018-0019-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC
  2. Evotec via the Systems Approaches to Biomedical Sciences Doctoral Training Center [EP/G037280/1]
  3. EPSRC UK National Service for Computational Chemistry Software (NSCCS) at Imperial College London [EP/J003921/1]
  4. EPSRC [EP/L000253/1]
  5. AbbVie
  6. Bayer
  7. Boehringer Ingelheim
  8. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  9. Canadian Institutes for Health Research
  10. Genome Canada
  11. GlaxoSmithKline
  12. Janssen
  13. Lilly Canada
  14. Novartis Research Foundation
  15. Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation
  16. Pfizer
  17. Takeda
  18. Wellcome Trust [092809/Z/10/Z]
  19. SGC
  20. EPSRC [EP/M022609/1, EP/L000253/1, EP/J010189/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Conserved water molecules are of interest in drug design, as displacement of such waters can lead to higher affinity ligands, and in some cases, contribute towards selectivity. Bromodomains, small protein domains involved in the epigenetic regulation of gene transcription, display a network of four conserved water molecules in their binding pockets and have recently been the focus of intense medicinal chemistry efforts. Understanding why certain bromodomains have displaceable water molecules and others do not is extremely challenging, and it remains unclear which water molecules in a given bromodomain can be targeted for displacement. Here we estimate the stability of the conserved water molecules in 35 bromodomains via binding free energy calculations using all-atom grand canonical Monte Carlo simulations. Encouraging quantitative agreement to the available experimental evidence is found. We thus discuss the expected ease of water displacement in different bromodomains and the implications for ligand selectivity.

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

4.6
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