Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Docking a compound against an isolated protein pair can place it in a space occupied by another subunit of the deposited assembly. We examined whether this problem changed the interpretation of a natural product docking panel at the optineurin (OPTN)-TANKbinding kinase 1 (TBK1) interface.Methods: Eleven compounds were docked against the wild-type (WT) and E50K crystal fragments in 2 OPTN-TBK1 chain-pair frames (AC and BD), with 10 seeds per condition. A post hoc audit of 440 archived outputs motivated a comparison of pair-only and 4-chain receptors. The comparison preserved prepared target atoms, ligand inputs, grids, and search settings, generating 880 new outputs on 1 graphics processing unit. First-ranked poses were assessed for complementary-chain distances, target-pair contacts, and seed dispersion.Results: In the new comparison, 35/440 pair-only poses approached complementary-chain heavy atoms within 2 Å; 31 satisfied the original dual-chain contact criterion. No 4-chain pose had this flag. For coptisine in E50K_AC, flags fell from 5/10 to 0/10 while mean scores changed from -6.3497 to -6.3409 kcal/mol. Median within-condition root-mean-square deviation fell from 16.017 to 0.206 Å. Across all 44 compound-system strata, the number with median root-mean-square deviation ≤ 2 Å changed from 18 to 17. Coptisine retained a recurrent WT_AC pose.Conclusion: Similar scores can conceal different assembly compatibility and pose locations. These calculations support checking assembly context before interpreting natural product docking contacts, but do not establish ligand binding, OPTN-TBK1 modulation or the predictive accuracy of the revised receptor representation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Byungwoong Yoo (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: