In one paragraphArticle in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from itWhat it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
2 · The registryThe trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
3 · Its place in the literatureWho cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
4 · The recordCorrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
5 · Who and what moneyAuthors and funding
20 authors.
Jongbin KimDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-3405-7880 Galen J CorreyDepartment of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5155-7325 Brendan W HallDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1616-1303 Moira M RachmanDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3671-8885 Olivier MailhotDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7533-4561 Takaya TogoDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0243-0760 Ryan L GonciarzDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6600-7032 Priyadarshini JaishankarDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-2013-8941 R Jeffrey NeitzDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2247-9345 Eric R HantzDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2588-7619 Yagmur U DorukHelen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3388-7803 Maisie G V StevensHelen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-9732-0349 Morgan E DiolaitiHelen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5900-3060 Rashad ReidDepartment of Biological and Medical Informatics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-1513-8614 Saumya GopalkrishnanQuantitative Biosciences Institute (QBI), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-6713-4492 Nevan J KroganDepartment of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4902-337X Adam R RensloDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1240-2846 Alan AshworthHelen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1446-7878 Brian K ShoichetDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6098-7367 James S FraserDepartment of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5080-2859 Funding
Targeting Viroporins and Coronavirus M ProteinU19AI171110 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI James Solomon Fraser · 2022 to 2026
$103.4MA Synchrotron Radiation Structural Biology ResourcesP30GM133894 · NIGMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Aina E. Cohen, KEITH O HODGSON · 2020 to 2026
$43.3MUser Training and OutreachP30GM124169 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIF-LAWRENC BERKELEY LAB · PI Gregory L Hura · 2017 to 2026
$28.6MDevelopment and Testing of New Computational Methods for Ligand Discovery and MechanismR35GM122481 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Brian K Shoichet · 2017 to 2026
$8.5MEquipment for Discovering and Manipulating Macromolecular Conformational EnsemblesR35GM145238 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI James Solomon Fraser · 2022 to 2026
$3.1MNIAID NIH HHS U19 AI171110NIGMS NIH HHS P30 GM124169NIGMS NIH HHS P30 GM133894NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM122481NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM145238
6 · The paper itselfAbstract
Accurate prediction of ligand-bound protein complexes and ranking them by affinity are central problems in drug discovery. While deep learning co-folding methods can help address these challenges, their evaluation has been hampered by the difficulties in assessing independence from training data and insufficiently large test sets. Here we test the ability of co-folding methods to predict the structures of 557 ligands bound to the SARS-CoV-2 NSP3 macrodomain (Mac1) that were determined after the training cut-off dates. AlphaFold3 (AF3), Boltz-2, and Chai-1 each reproduced >50% of the Mac1 ligand poses to better than 2 Å RMSD of experiment. Despite the potential for co-folding to describe protein conformational changes that stabilize ligand binding, we did not find that common conformational rearrangements, including peptide flip and a large loop opening, were recapitulated by the co-folding prediction. For AF3 and Chai-1, ligand pose prediction confidence weakly, but significantly, tracked experimental potency, while DOCK3.7 energies were only weakly correlated. Boltz-2 affinity predictions showed the strongest correlation with measured potency and, after calibration, achieved lower mean absolute error than a baseline predictor. We next assessed whether co-folding scores could rescore docking hit-lists to distinguish true ligands from non-binders among hundreds of molecules prospectively experimentally tested against AmpC β-lactamase, the dopamine D4 and the σ
Identifiers
PMID41509292
PMCPMC12776374
What Socratic holds
Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390