4AHV

Parallel screening of a low molecular weight compound library: do differences in methodology affect hit identification


Experimental Data Snapshot

  • Method: X-RAY DIFFRACTION
  • Resolution: 1.80 Å
  • R-Value Free: 0.224 
  • R-Value Work: 0.175 
  • R-Value Observed: 0.177 

wwPDB Validation 3D Report Full Report


This is version 1.3 of the entry. See complete history


Literature

Parallel Screening of Low Molecular Weight Fragment Libraries: Do Differences in Methodology Affect Hit Identification?

Wielens, J.Headey, S.J.Rhodes, D.I.Mulder, R.J.Dolezal, O.Deadman, J.J.Newman, J.Chalmers, D.K.Parker, M.W.Peat, T.S.Scanlon, M.J.

(2013) J Biomol Screen 18: 147

  • DOI: 10.1177/1087057112465979
  • Structures With Same Primary Citation

  • PubMed Abstract: 
  • Fragment screening is becoming widely accepted as a technique to identify hit compounds for the development of novel lead compounds. In neighboring laboratories, we have recently, and independently, performed a fragment screening campaign on the HIV- ...

    Fragment screening is becoming widely accepted as a technique to identify hit compounds for the development of novel lead compounds. In neighboring laboratories, we have recently, and independently, performed a fragment screening campaign on the HIV-1 integrase core domain (IN) using similar commercially purchased fragment libraries. The two campaigns used different screening methods for the preliminary identification of fragment hits; one used saturation transfer difference nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (STD-NMR), and the other used surface plasmon resonance (SPR) spectroscopy. Both initial screens were followed by X-ray crystallography. Using the STD-NMR/X-ray approach, 15 IN/fragment complexes were identified, whereas the SPR/X-ray approach found 6 complexes. In this article, we compare the approaches that were taken by each group and the results obtained, and we look at what factors could potentially influence the final results. We find that despite using different approaches with little overlap of initial hits, both approaches identified binding sites on IN that provided a basis for fragment-based lead discovery and further lead development. Comparison of hits identified in the two studies highlights a key role for both the conditions under which fragment binding is measured and the criteria selected to classify hits.


    Organizational Affiliation

    St. Vincent's Institute, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia.



Macromolecules

Find similar proteins by: Sequence  |  Structure

Entity ID: 1
MoleculeChainsSequence LengthOrganismDetails
INTEGRASE
A, B
183Human immunodeficiency virusMutation(s): 3 
EC: 2.7.7.1 (PDB Primary Data), 3.4.23.16 (UniProt), 2.7.7.49 (UniProt), 2.7.7.7 (UniProt), 3.1.26.13 (UniProt), 3.1.13.2 (UniProt), 2.7.7 (UniProt), 3.1 (UniProt)
Find proteins for P12497 (Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 group M subtype B (isolate NY5))
Go to UniProtKB:  P12497
Small Molecules
Ligands 5 Unique
IDChainsName / Formula / InChI Key2D Diagram3D Interactions
Z5P
Query on Z5P

Download CCD File 
A, B
1-[2-(1H-pyrazol-1-yl)phenyl]methanamine
C10 H11 N3
SJMJUZRSTJBVPG-UHFFFAOYSA-N
 Ligand Interaction
TAM
Query on TAM

Download CCD File 
A, B
TRIS(HYDROXYETHYL)AMINOMETHANE
C7 H17 N O3
GKODZWOPPOTFGA-UHFFFAOYSA-N
 Ligand Interaction
SO4
Query on SO4

Download CCD File 
A, B
SULFATE ION
O4 S
QAOWNCQODCNURD-UHFFFAOYSA-L
 Ligand Interaction
EDO
Query on EDO

Download CCD File 
A, B
1,2-ETHANEDIOL
C2 H6 O2
LYCAIKOWRPUZTN-UHFFFAOYSA-N
 Ligand Interaction
ACY
Query on ACY

Download CCD File 
A
ACETIC ACID
C2 H4 O2
QTBSBXVTEAMEQO-UHFFFAOYSA-N
 Ligand Interaction
External Ligand Annotations 
IDBinding Affinity (Sequence Identity %)
Z5PKd:  15000000   nM  PDBBind
Experimental Data & Validation

Experimental Data

  • Method: X-RAY DIFFRACTION
  • Resolution: 1.80 Å
  • R-Value Free: 0.224 
  • R-Value Work: 0.175 
  • R-Value Observed: 0.177 
  • Space Group: P 31
Unit Cell:
Length ( Å )Angle ( ˚ )
a = 70.923α = 90
b = 70.923β = 90
c = 66.69γ = 120
Software Package:
Software NamePurpose
REFMACrefinement
MOSFLMdata reduction
SCALAdata scaling
PHASERphasing

Structure Validation

View Full Validation Report



Entry History 

Deposition Data

Revision History 

  • Version 1.0: 2012-12-19
    Type: Initial release
  • Version 1.1: 2013-01-30
    Changes: Database references
  • Version 1.2: 2019-05-08
    Changes: Data collection, Experimental preparation, Other
  • Version 1.3: 2019-05-15
    Changes: Data collection, Experimental preparation