Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CocktailChemist t1_jbts314 wrote

To add to this, there’s an iterative set of interactions where ligand binding induces conformational changes on the receptor, which induces some conformational change on the ligand, and so on. That’s why in silico docking that assumes a rigid receptor often gives spurious results that don’t line up with experimentally measured binding affinities. It’s problematic since reductions in receptor degrees of freedom can impose a significant entropic cost, which can have a major influence on the Gibb’s free energy of the binding event.

We’re getting better at modeling those interactions than we used to be, but it’s still extremely challenging. The best efforts start with a large collection of known binding affinities with different ligands, which can be used to constrain the system.

3

danby t1_jbtvg22 wrote

A big issue is the lack of data. There are lots of crystal structures of proteins and lots of structures with ligands bound but very little data of the intermediary states along the way to binding.

5

slashdave t1_jbvxji0 wrote

The intermediate states are irrelevant. It is only the free-energy difference of the two states (bound and unbound) that matter.

1

danby t1_jbz36wk wrote

> The intermediate states are irrelevant

Irrelevant to what? They seem pretty relevant if we're studying protein dynamics.

> It is only the free-energy difference of the two states (bound and unbound) that matter.

It's the only information that matters to what? If we're studying protein dynamics can you predict if a protein undergoes a change in structure form the change in free energy alone?

1