pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24773 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 🧬 q-bio.BM · quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Simultaneous Fragment Docking for Geometrically Linkable Pose Pairs

Jiyun Lee , You Kyoung Chung , Joonsuk Huh
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 09:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.BM quant-ph
keywords fragment dockingQUBO optimizationmolecular pose predictionreconstruction-feasible pairssimultaneous dockingmolecular designbinary optimizationlinkable fragments
0
0 comments X

The pith

Adding an explicit inter-fragment distance term to QUBO-based simultaneous fragment docking doubles recovery of geometrically linkable pose pairs.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper formulates simultaneous docking of two molecular fragments as a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem, Q-SFD. It adds an explicit inter-fragment distance term to the objective to favor arrangements that can later be chemically connected into a single molecule. Relative to the version without this term, the updated formulation approximately doubles top-1 recovery of reconstruction-feasible pairs. In more than 90 percent of benchmark cases, at least one feasible pair appears among the top-5 solutions. Individual fragment pose accuracy stays the same.

Core claim

By introducing an explicit inter-fragment distance term into the QUBO objective for Q-SFD, the method approximately doubles top-1 recovery of reconstruction-feasible pairs and ensures that the top-5 solutions contain at least one feasible pair for more than 90% of cases, without compromising fragment-level pose accuracy.

What carries the argument

Q-SFD, the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization formulation for simultaneous fragment docking, with the added explicit inter-fragment distance term that favors distances suitable for chemical linking.

If this is right

  • Top-5 ranked solutions reliably include at least one reconstruction-feasible pair in over 90% of tested cases.
  • Fragment-level binding pose accuracy remains unchanged after adding the distance term.
  • The approach directly recovers chemically realizable fragment arrangements for later molecular assembly.
  • Simultaneous placement reduces the need for separate post-processing steps to check linkability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same QUBO structure could be extended to three or more fragments to handle multi-fragment assembly directly.
  • Integration into fragment-based drug design tools might allow early filtering for connectable poses during screening.
  • Performance on libraries with varied linker chemistries would test whether the simple distance term generalizes.
  • Solver runtime for larger pose sets could become a practical limit when applying the method to bigger systems.

Load-bearing premise

The explicit inter-fragment distance term in the QUBO objective accurately identifies arrangements that are chemically feasible to reconstruct into real molecules.

What would settle it

A new set of fragment pairs outside the benchmark where the distance term selects pairs that cannot form valid chemical links due to unaccounted steric or angle constraints.

read the original abstract

Computational molecular design requires binding arrangements that are not only energetically favorable but also chemically realizable. However, computational methods remain limited in directly recovering fragment pose pairs that can later be connected into a single molecule. To address this problem, we formulated the simultaneous placement of two fragments as a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem, Q-SFD, and introduced an explicit inter-fragment distance term to favor reconstruction-feasible arrangements. Relative to the formulation without this term, Q-SFD approximately doubled top-1 recovery of reconstruction-feasible pairs, and the top-5 solutions contained at least one feasible pair for more than 90% of benchmark cases without loss of fragment-level pose accuracy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript formulates simultaneous docking of two fragments as a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem called Q-SFD. It introduces an explicit inter-fragment distance term in the objective to favor reconstruction-feasible pose pairs and reports that this term approximately doubles top-1 recovery of such pairs relative to the baseline without the term; the top-5 solutions contain at least one feasible pair for >90% of benchmark cases while preserving fragment-level pose accuracy.

Significance. If the numerical gains are reproducible on well-characterized benchmarks with explicit post-optimization validation, the approach would directly address a key bottleneck in fragment-based design by optimizing for linkability rather than relying on post-hoc linker enumeration. The QUBO encoding is a strength for potential use with specialized solvers, but the current lack of dataset details, feasibility definitions, and error bars limits immediate impact.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central numerical claims (doubling of top-1 recovery, >90% top-5 success) are stated without any description of the benchmark datasets, the precise definition of 'reconstruction-feasible' pairs, statistical significance testing, error bars, or validation procedures. This absence is load-bearing because the reader's strongest claim cannot be assessed from the given information.
  2. [Methods] Methods (QUBO objective): the inter-fragment distance term is presented as sufficient to identify chemically reconstruction-feasible arrangements, yet the formulation appears to treat feasibility solely as a distance constraint. No accounting is shown for attachment-vector orientations, linker geometry, torsional strain, or steric clashes, which directly risks overstating the linkability of recovered pairs.
  3. [Results] Results: the comparison to the baseline without the distance term is direct, but the manuscript supplies no post-optimization checks such as explicit linker insertion followed by energy minimization or clash detection. Without these, the reported gains cannot be confirmed to reflect true chemical realizability rather than proximity alone.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify the exact weighting scheme and scaling of the inter-fragment distance term relative to other QUBO contributions; the free parameter noted in the axiom ledger should be explicitly stated with its chosen value.
  2. [Results] Add a table or figure caption that lists the benchmark cases, their sizes, and the precise success criteria used for 'feasible pair' recovery.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which highlight important aspects of clarity and validation. We address each major comment point by point below and indicate the revisions planned for the next manuscript version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central numerical claims (doubling of top-1 recovery, >90% top-5 success) are stated without any description of the benchmark datasets, the precise definition of 'reconstruction-feasible' pairs, statistical significance testing, error bars, or validation procedures. This absence is load-bearing because the reader's strongest claim cannot be assessed from the given information.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from additional context. In the revised version, we will expand the abstract to briefly describe the benchmark (a curated set of protein-fragment complexes drawn from the PDB), define reconstruction-feasible pairs as those with inter-fragment distances in the 3–8 Å range compatible with typical linkers, and note that numerical results include error bars from replicate optimizations with statistical comparisons to the baseline. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods (QUBO objective): the inter-fragment distance term is presented as sufficient to identify chemically reconstruction-feasible arrangements, yet the formulation appears to treat feasibility solely as a distance constraint. No accounting is shown for attachment-vector orientations, linker geometry, torsional strain, or steric clashes, which directly risks overstating the linkability of recovered pairs.

    Authors: The distance term functions as a soft bias to increase the probability of spatially proximate pose pairs that can serve as starting points for linker design. We will revise the Methods section to explicitly state that the term does not incorporate attachment-vector orientations, torsional strain, or clash detection, and that these elements are left for subsequent chemical validation steps. This clarification will ensure the scope of the claim is accurately represented. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results: the comparison to the baseline without the distance term is direct, but the manuscript supplies no post-optimization checks such as explicit linker insertion followed by energy minimization or clash detection. Without these, the reported gains cannot be confirmed to reflect true chemical realizability rather than proximity alone.

    Authors: We acknowledge that explicit post-optimization validation would further support claims of chemical realizability. The present work focuses on the QUBO docking formulation and recovery of distance-compliant pairs as a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for linkability. In the revised manuscript we will add a short discussion of this limitation in the Results section and include any internal clash-detection statistics we have available; full linker insertion and minimization remain outside the current scope. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in Q-SFD empirical validation

full rationale

The paper formulates simultaneous fragment docking as a QUBO problem (Q-SFD) and adds an explicit inter-fragment distance term to favor linkable arrangements. The key claim of doubled top-1 recovery and >90% top-5 success is obtained by direct numerical comparison of the augmented objective against the baseline without the term, run on independent benchmark cases. This is an empirical outcome of optimization, not a mathematical derivation that reduces to its inputs by construction, self-definition, or fitted parameters. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or smuggled ansatzes appear in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the assumption that binary variables in QUBO can adequately discretize fragment poses and that the distance term's weighting produces feasible pairs without distorting energy rankings; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • weight of inter-fragment distance term
    The coefficient balancing the new distance term against other QUBO terms is not specified and would need to be chosen or fitted.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption QUBO formulation can represent fragment docking poses and interactions with sufficient fidelity
    Invoked when casting simultaneous placement as a binary optimization problem.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5409 in / 1466 out tokens · 30825 ms · 2026-05-10T09:45:47.312222+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nature Reviews Drug Discovery3(8), 660–672 (2004) https://doi.org/10

    Rees, D.C., Congreve, M., Murray, C.W., Carr, R.: Fragment-based lead discov- ery. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery3(8), 660–672 (2004) https://doi.org/10. 1038/nrd1467

    2004

  2. [2]

    Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 15(9), 605–619 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2016.109

    Erlanson, D.A., Fesik, S.W., Hubbard, R.E., Jahnke, W., Jhoti, H.: Twenty years on: The impact of fragments on drug discovery. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 15(9), 605–619 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2016.109

    work page doi:10.1038/nrd.2016.109 2016

  3. [3]

    Nature Chemistry1(3), 187–192 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.217

    Murray, C.W., Rees, D.C.: The rise of fragment-based drug discovery. Nature Chemistry1(3), 187–192 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.217

    work page doi:10.1038/nchem.217 2009

  4. [4]

    Essays in Biochemistry61(5), 453–464 (2017) https://doi.org/10

    Lamoree, B., Hubbard, R.E.: Current perspectives in fragment-based lead dis- covery (fbld). Essays in Biochemistry61(5), 453–464 (2017) https://doi.org/10. 1042/EBC20170013

    2017

  5. [5]

    Frontiers in Chemistry8, 93 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2020.00093

    Souza Neto, L.R., Moreira-Filho, J.T., Neves, B.J., Maidana, R.L.B.R., Guimar˜ aes, A.C.R., Furnham, N., Andrade, C.H., Silva Jr., F.P.: In silico strate- gies to support fragment-to-lead optimization in drug discovery. Frontiers in Chemistry8, 93 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2020.00093

    work page doi:10.3389/fchem.2020.00093 2020

  6. [6]

    Performance and Analysis of the Alchemical Transfer Method for Binding-Free-Energy Predictions of Diverse Ligands

    Bancet, A., Raingeval, C., Lomberget, T., Le Borgne, M., Guichou, J.-F., Krimm, I.: Fragment linking strategies for structure-based drug design. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry63(20), 11420–11435 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1021/acs. jmedchem.0c00242

    work page doi:10.1021/acs 2020

  7. [7]

    Celestial Mechan- ics and Dynamical Astronomy83, 155–169 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1020143116091

    Murray, C.W., Verdonk, M.L.: The consequences of translational and rotational entropy lost by small molecules on binding to proteins. Journal of Computer- Aided Molecular Design16(10), 741–753 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1022446720849

    work page doi:10.1023/a: 2002

  8. [8]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America78(7), 4046–4050 (1981) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.78.7.4046

    Jencks, W.P.: On the attribution and additivity of binding energies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America78(7), 4046–4050 (1981) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.78.7.4046

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.78.7.4046 1981

  9. [9]

    Molecules24(23), 4309 (2019) https: //doi.org/10.3390/molecules24234309

    Kirsch, P., Hartman, A.M., Hirsch, A.K.H., Empting, M.: Concepts and core principles of fragment-based drug design. Molecules24(23), 4309 (2019) https: //doi.org/10.3390/molecules24234309

    work page doi:10.3390/molecules24234309 2019

  10. [10]

    Molecular Informatics30(4), 298–306 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1002/ minf.201000134

    Ichihara, O., Barker, J., Law, R.J., Whittaker, M.: Compound design by fragment- linking. Molecular Informatics30(4), 298–306 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1002/ minf.201000134

    2011

  11. [11]

    Ange- wandte Chemie International Edition55(32), 9422–9426 (2016) https://doi.org/ 23 10.1002/anie.201602927

    Mondal, M., Radeva, N., Fanlo-Virg´ os, H., Otto, S., Davis, B.G.: Fragment linking and optimization of inhibitors of the aspartic protease endothiapepsin. Ange- wandte Chemie International Edition55(32), 9422–9426 (2016) https://doi.org/ 23 10.1002/anie.201602927

    work page doi:10.1002/anie.201602927 2016

  12. [12]

    Journal of Medicinal Chemistry48(2), 403–413 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1021/jm0495778

    Hartshorn, M.J., Murray, C.W., Cleasby, A., Frederickson, M., Tickle, I.J., Jhoti, H.: Fragment-based lead discovery using X-ray crystallography. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry48(2), 403–413 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1021/jm0495778

    work page doi:10.1021/jm0495778 2005

  13. [13]

    Nature Reviews Drug Discovery6(3), 211–219 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2220

    Hajduk, P.J., Greer, J.: A decade of fragment-based drug design: Strategic advances and lessons learned. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery6(3), 211–219 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2220

    work page doi:10.1038/nrd2220 2007

  14. [14]

    Harnessing the power of micro scopy images to accelerate drug discovery: what are the possibilities? Exp ert Opinion on Drug Discovery

    Bissaro, M., Sturlese, M., Moro, S.: Revisiting the role of computational methods in fragment-based drug design. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery15(10), 1221– 1233 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1080/17460441.2020.1798924

    work page doi:10.1080/17460441.2020.1798924 2020

  15. [15]

    Journal of Molecular Biology 261(3), 470–489 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1996.0477

    Rarey, M., Kramer, B., Lengauer, T., Klebe, G.: A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. Journal of Molecular Biology 261(3), 470–489 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1996.0477

    work page doi:10.1006/jmbi.1996.0477 1996

  16. [16]

    Journal of Computational Chemistry36(15), 1132–1156 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.23905

    Allen, W.J., Balius, T.E., Mukherjee, S., Brozell, S.R., Moustakas, D.T., Lang, P.T., Case, D.A., Kuntz, I.D., Rizzo, R.C.: DOCK 6: Impact of new features and current docking performance. Journal of Computational Chemistry36(15), 1132–1156 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.23905

    work page doi:10.1002/jcc.23905 2015

  17. [17]

    Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling61(8), 3891–3898 (2021) https://doi.org/10

    Eberhardt, J., Santos-Martins, D., Tillack, A.F., Forli, S.: AutoDock Vina 1.2.0: New docking methods, expanded force field, and python bindings. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling61(8), 3891–3898 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 1021/acs.jcim.1c00203

    2021

  18. [18]

    Journal of Computational Chemistry31, 455–461 (2010) https://doi.org/10

    Trott, O., Olson, A.J.: AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithread- ing. Journal of Computational Chemistry31, 455–461 (2010) https://doi.org/10. 1002/jcc.21334

    2010

  19. [19]

    Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling59, 895–913 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim

    Su, M., Yang, Q., Du, Y., Feng, G., Liu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, R.: Comparative assessment of scoring functions: The CASF-2016 update. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling59, 895–913 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim. 8b00545

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jcim 2016

  20. [20]

    The Protein Data Bank

    Berman, H.M., Westbrook, J., Feng, Z., Gilliland, G., Bhat, T.N., Weissig, H., Shindyalov, I.N., Bourne, P.E.: The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Research 28(1), 235–242 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.1.235

    work page doi:10.1093/nar/28.1.235 2000

  21. [21]

    Journal of Computational Chemistry30(16), 2785– 2791 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21256 24

    Morris, G.M., Huey, R., Lindstrom, W., Sanner, M.F., Belew, R.K., Goodsell, D.S., Olson, A.J.: AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. Journal of Computational Chemistry30(16), 2785– 2791 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21256 24

    work page doi:10.1002/jcc.21256 2009

  22. [22]

    Journal of Cheminformatics 3, 33 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-2946-3-33

    O’Boyle, N.M., Banck, M., James, C.A., Morley, C., Vandermeersch, T., Hutchi- son, G.R.: Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox. Journal of Cheminformatics 3, 33 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-2946-3-33

    work page doi:10.1186/1758-2946-3-33 2011

  23. [23]

    Journal of Medicinal Chemistry28, 849–857 (1985) https://doi.org/10.1021/jm00145a002

    Goodford, P.J.: A computational procedure for determining energetically favor- able binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry28, 849–857 (1985) https://doi.org/10.1021/jm00145a002

    work page doi:10.1021/jm00145a002 1985

  24. [24]

    Entropy26, 397 (2024) https://doi.org/10.3390/e26050397

    Yanagisawa, K., Fujie, T., Takabatake, K., Akiyama, Y.: QUBO problem formu- lation of fragment-based protein–ligand flexible docking. Entropy26, 397 (2024) https://doi.org/10.3390/e26050397

    work page doi:10.3390/e26050397 2024

  25. [25]

    Quantum Science and Technology10, 045049 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1088/ 2058-9565/ae0890

    Triuzzi, E., Mengoni, R., Bonanni, D., Ottaviani, D., Beccari, A., Palermo, G.: Molecular docking via weighted subgraph isomorphism on quantum annealers. Quantum Science and Technology10, 045049 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1088/ 2058-9565/ae0890

    2025

  26. [26]

    Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Frontiers in Physics2, 10.3389/fphy.2014.00005 (2014)

    Lucas, A.: Ising formulations of many NP problems. Frontiers in Physics2, 5 (2014) https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2014.00005

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2014.00005 2014

  27. [27]

    4OR17(4), 335–371 (2019) https://doi

    Glover, F., Kochenberger, G., Du, Y.: Quantum bridge analytics I: A tutorial on formulating and using QUBO models. 4OR17(4), 335–371 (2019) https://doi. org/10.1007/s10288-019-00424-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10288-019-00424-y 2019

  28. [28]

    Jour- nal of Combinatorial Optimization28, 58–81 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10878-014-9734-0

    Kochenberger, G., Hao, J.-K., Glover, F., Lewis, M., L¨ u, Z., Wang, H., Wang, Y.: The unconstrained binary quadratic programming problem: A survey. Jour- nal of Combinatorial Optimization28, 58–81 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10878-014-9734-0

    2014

  29. [29]

    Synthesis Lectures on Quantum Computing

    McGeoch, C.C.: Adiabatic Quantum Computation and Quantum Annealing: The- ory and Practice. Synthesis Lectures on Quantum Computing. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02518-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02518-1 2014

  30. [30]

    Terzo, et al., Novel 3D Pixel Sensors for the Upgrade of the ATLAS Inner Tracker, Front

    Aramon, M., Rosenberg, G., Valiante, E., Miyazawa, T., Tamura, H., Katzgraber, H.G.: Physics-inspired optimization for quadratic unconstrained problems using a digital annealer. Frontiers in Physics7, 48 (2019) https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy. 2019.00048

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy 2019

  31. [31]

    Acta Crystallographica Section A32, 922–923 (1976) https://doi.org/10.1107/ S0567739476001873

    Kabsch, W.: A solution for the best rotation to relate two sets of vectors. Acta Crystallographica Section A32, 922–923 (1976) https://doi.org/10.1107/ S0567739476001873

    1976

  32. [32]

    Kirkpatrick and C

    Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C.D., Vecchi, M.P.: Optimization by simulated annealing. Science220, 671–680 (1983) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.220.4598.671

    work page doi:10.1126/science.220.4598.671 1983

  33. [33]

    25 Mathematics10, 1294 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3390/math10081294

    Stogiannos, E., Papalitsas, C., Andronikos, T.: Experimental analysis of quan- tum annealers and hybrid solvers using benchmark optimization problems. 25 Mathematics10, 1294 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3390/math10081294

    work page doi:10.3390/math10081294 2022

  34. [34]

    Perspectives of quantum annealing: methods and implementations,

    Hauke, P., Katzgraber, H.G., Lechner, W., Nishimori, H., Oliver, W.D.: Perspec- tives of quantum annealing: Methods and implementations. Reports on Progress in Physics83, 054401 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ab85b8

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ab85b8 2020

  35. [35]

    Reports on Progress in Physics85(10), 104001 (2022), https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6633/ac8c54 9

    Yarkoni, S., Raponi, E., Back, T., Schmitt, S.: Quantum annealing for industry applications: Introduction and review. Reports on Progress in Physics85, 104001 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ac8c54

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac8c54 2022

  36. [36]

    Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry23, 6520– 6527 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmc.2015.08.006

    Xing, L., Klug-McLeod, J., Rai, B., Lunney, E.A.: Kinase hinge binding scaffolds and their hydrogen bond patterns. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry23, 6520– 6527 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmc.2015.08.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bmc.2015.08.006 2015

  37. [37]

    ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters14, 1503–1508 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1021/ acsmedchemlett.3c00212

    Zhao, Z., Bourne, P.E.: How ligands interact with the kinase hinge. ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters14, 1503–1508 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1021/ acsmedchemlett.3c00212

    2023

  38. [38]

    Roland L., Levy, R.M.: Conformational analysis of the DFG-out kinase motif and biochemical profiling of structurally validated type II inhibitors

    Vijayan, R.S.K., He, P., Modi, V., Duong-Ly, K.C., Ma, H., Peterson, J.R., Dunbrack, J. Roland L., Levy, R.M.: Conformational analysis of the DFG-out kinase motif and biochemical profiling of structurally validated type II inhibitors. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry58(1), 466–479 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1021/ jm501603h

    2015

  39. [39]

    Roland L.: Defining a new nomenclature for the structures of active and inactive kinases

    Modi, V., Dunbrack, J. Roland L.: Defining a new nomenclature for the structures of active and inactive kinases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 6818–6827 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1814279116

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1814279116 2019

  40. [40]

    Nature Chemical Biology2, 358–364 (2006) https://doi.org/10

    Liu, Y., Gray, N.S.: Rational design of inhibitors that bind to inactive kinase conformations. Nature Chemical Biology2, 358–364 (2006) https://doi.org/10. 1038/nchembio799

    2006

  41. [41]

    Journal of Medicinal Chemistry51, 7921–7932 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1021/jm8010299

    Kufareva, I., Abagyan, R.: Type II kinase inhibitor docking, screening, and pro- filing using modified structures of active kinase states. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry51, 7921–7932 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1021/jm8010299

    work page doi:10.1021/jm8010299 2008

  42. [42]

    Nature Reviews Drug Discovery20(11), 839–861 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41573-021-00252-y

    Attwood, M.M., Fabbro, D., Sokolov, A.V., Knapp, S., Schi¨ oth, H.B.: Trends in kinase drug discovery: Targets, indications and inhibitor design. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery20(11), 839–861 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41573-021-00252-y

    2021

  43. [43]

    Nature Reviews Drug Discovery20, 551–569 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-021-00195-4

    Cohen, P., Cross, D., Janne, P.A.: Kinase drug discovery 20 years after ima- tinib: Progress and future directions. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery20, 551–569 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-021-00195-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41573-021-00195-4 2021

  44. [44]

    Nature Reviews 26 Drug Discovery3, 935–949 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1549

    Kitchen, D.B., Decornez, H., Furr, J.R., Bajorath, J.: Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: Methods and applications. Nature Reviews 26 Drug Discovery3, 935–949 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1549

    work page doi:10.1038/nrd1549 2004

  45. [45]

    Biophysical Reviews9, 91–102 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12551-016-0247-1

    Pagadala, N.S., Syed, K., Tuszynski, J.: Software for molecular docking: A review. Biophysical Reviews9, 91–102 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12551-016-0247-1

    2017

  46. [46]

    Journal of Medicinal Chemistry49(20), 5912–5931 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1021/jm050362n 27

    Warren, G.L., Andrews, C.W., Capelli, A.-M., Clarke, B., LaLonde, J., Lambert, M.H., Lindvall, M., Nevins, N., Semus, S.F., Senger, S., Tedesco, G., Wall, I.D., Woolven, J.M., Peishoff, C.E., Head, M.S.: A critical assessment of docking pro- grams and scoring functions. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry49(20), 5912–5931 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1021/jm050362n 27

    work page doi:10.1021/jm050362n 2006