ReviewActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B2026
Computational approaches to druggable site identification: Current status and future perspective.
Review in Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What 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.
The 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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacophore-based virtual screening, molecular docking, MD simulation, MM-GBSA energy calculation and DFT analysis for theRSC advances · 2026Article
- Clove Essential Oil as an Antifungal Agent and Putative Dual-Action Antifungal Mechanism: Experimental Validation and Computational Insights into Orthosteric and Allosteric Modulation of Chitin Synthase I inMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Tumor Cell Proliferation Inhibitory Activity of the Human Herpes Virus Type 6 U94 Protein Relies on a Stable Tridimensional Conformation.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Discovery of novel peptidomimetics against HSP90-HOP interactions towards improved cancer therapeutics using machine learning strategies.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the rapid advancements in computer technology and bioinformatics, the prediction of protein-ligand-binding sites has become a central component of modern drug discovery and development. Traditional experimental methods are often constrained by long experimental cycles and high costs; therefore, the development of accurate and efficient computational methods is of paramount significance for conserving time and cost. This review comprehensively summarizes the methodological advancements and current applications in the field of screening for druggable protein target sites, systematically comparing the fundamental principles, advantages, and disadvantages of four main categories of methods: structure- and sequence-based methods, machine learning-based methods, binding site feature analysis methods, and druggability assessment methods. Subsequently, by integrating classic case studies, this paper elaborately discusses the technical support and theoretical guidance afforded by the screening of protein druggable target sites for drug discovery and drug repositioning. Finally, this paper thoroughly explores the current challenges inherent in the field of protein-ligand binding site prediction, with a particular focus on future technological trends, systematically elucidating the developmental prospects and potential applications of these predictive methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.