Archives of Industrial Biotechnology

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +1 (629)348-3199

Rapid Communication - Archives of Industrial Biotechnology (2024) Volume 8, Issue 3

Structural Bioinformatics: Predicting Protein-Ligand Interactions

Ingo Eilks*

Department of Chemistry, Federal University of Sao Carlos, Brazil

*Corresponding Author:
Ingo Eilks
Department of Chemistry
Federal University of Sao Carlos
Brazil
E-mail:ingoeilks@yahoo.com

Received: 24-May-2024, Manuscript No. AAAIB-24-139076; Editor assigned: 27-May-2024, PreQC No. AAAIB-24-139076 (PQ); Reviewed: 13-Jun-2024, QC No. AAAIB-24-139076; Revised: 22-Jun-2024, Manuscript No. AAAIB-24-139076 (R); Published: 26-Jun-2024, DOI: 10.35841/aaaib- 8.3.213

Citation: Eilks I. Structural bioinformatics: Predicting protein-ligand interactions. Arch Ind Biot. 2024; 8(3):213

Visit for more related articles at Archives of Industrial Biotechnology

In the realm of structural bioinformatics, the prediction of protein-ligand interactions plays a pivotal role in drug discovery, enzymatic mechanisms, and understanding molecular recognition processes. Proteins are dynamic macromolecules essential for virtually every biological process, from catalyzing biochemical reactions to transmitting signals within cells. Understanding how proteins interact with other molecules, particularly small molecules known as ligands, is fundamental in deciphering their functions and developing therapeutic agents. Structural bioinformatics employs computational methods to model and predict these interactions, offering insights that complement experimental techniques [1], [2]

Docking is a computational method used to predict the preferred orientation and conformation of a ligand when bound to a protein receptor. Algorithms such as AutoDock, GOLD, and Glide employ scoring functions to evaluate the binding affinity and complementarity between protein and ligand structures. MD simulations simulate the physical movements of atoms and molecules over time, providing a dynamic view of protein-ligand interactions. These simulations help understand how a ligand binds to a protein and how their interactions change under different conditions such as pH or temperature [3].

QSAR models correlate the structural features of ligands with their biological activities, predicting binding affinity and potency based on molecular descriptors. These models guide medicinal chemists in designing new ligands with improved efficacy. These calculations estimate the binding free energy of a protein-ligand complex, crucial for predicting binding affinity accurately. Methods like MM-PBSA (Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area) and MM-GBSA (Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area) integrate molecular mechanics simulations with solvation free energies to quantify binding strength. Predictive models heavily rely on scoring functions that may oversimplify complex interactions or fail to capture subtle energetic contributions. The role of water molecules in mediating protein-ligand interactions adds complexity and requires accurate modeling. High computational resources are often required for detailed simulations, limiting throughput and practical application in large-scale virtual screenings [4], [5]

Virtual screening of compound libraries accelerates the identification of lead molecules for drug development. Rational design of enzymes for industrial processes or biocatalysis by optimizing substrate specificity and efficiency. Elucidating the molecular basis of diseases and biological pathways through structure-based insights. Tailoring therapies based on individual genetic variations and protein structures. Integration of machine learning algorithms to improve scoring functions and predict novel protein-ligand interactions. Utilizing large datasets and high-throughput screening to validate computational predictions and enhance predictive models. Hybrid approaches combining docking simulations, MD simulations, and experimental data for comprehensive analysis [6], [7]

Structural bioinformatics continues to revolutionize our understanding of protein-ligand interactions, bridging theoretical insights with experimental validation. As computational techniques evolve and integrate with experimental approaches, the ability to predict and manipulate these interactions promises transformative impacts across biotechnology, medicine, and beyond [8], [9]

By leveraging computational power and innovative methodologies, researchers are poised to uncover new therapeutic targets and advance personalized medicine, making structural bioinformatics a cornerstone of modern biological research [10].

References

  1. Bakonyi P, Borza B, Orlovits K, et al. Fermentative hydrogen production by conventionally and unconventionally heat pretreated seed cultures: a comparative assessment. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2014;39(11):5589-96.

    2. Google Scholar

  2. Bakonyi P, Nemestóthy N, Bélafi-Bakó K. Biohydrogen purification by membranes: an overview on the operational conditions affecting the performance of non-porous, polymeric and ionic liquid based gas separation membranes. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2013;38(23):9673-87.

    3. Google Scholar

  3. Bakonyi P, Nemestóthy N, Simon V, et al. Review on the start-up experiences of continuous fermentative hydrogen producing bioreactors. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2014 ;40:806-13.

    4. Google Scholar

  4. Cavinato C, Giuliano A, Bolzonella D, et al. Bio-hythane production from food waste by dark fermentation coupled with anaerobic digestion process: A long-term pilot scale experience. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2012;37(15):11549-55.

    5. Google Scholar

  5. Cavinato C, Bolzonella D, Fatone F,et al. Optimization of two-phase thermophilic anaerobic digestion of biowaste for hydrogen and methane production through reject water recirculation. Bioresour Technol. 2011;102(18):8605-11.

    6. Indexed at , Google Scholar , Cross Ref

  6. Brinegar K, Yetisen A, Choi S, et al. The commercialization of genome-editing technologies. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2017;37(7):924-32.

    7. Indexed at , Google Scholar , Cross Ref

  7. Chen K, Wang Y, Zhang R, et al. CRISPR/Cas genome editing and precision plant breeding in agriculture.Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2019;70:667-97.

    8. Indexed at , Google Scholar , Cross Ref

  8. Dale PJ. Public reactions and scientific responses to transgenic crops: Commentary. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 1999;10(2):203-8.

    9. Indexed at , Google Scholar , Cross Ref

  9. Egelie KJ, Graff GD, Strand SP, et al. The emerging patent landscape of CRISPR–Cas gene editing technology. Nat biotechnol. 2016;34(10):1025-31.

    10. Indexed at , Google Scholar , Cross Ref

  10. Gao C. Genome engineering for crop improvement and future agriculture. Cell. 2021;184(6):1621-35.

    11. Indexed at , Google Scholar , Cross Ref

Get the App