English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In lead optimization, protein crystallography is an indispensable tool to analyze drug binding. Binding modes and non‐covalent interaction inventories are essential to design follow‐up synthesis candidates. Two protocols are commonly applied to produce protein–ligand complexes:  cocrystallization  and  soaking . Because of its time and cost effectiveness, soaking is the more popular method. Taking eight ligand hinge binders of protein kinase A, we demonstrate that cocrystallization is superior. Particularly for flexible proteins, such as kinases, and larger ligands cocrystallization captures more reliable the correct binding pose and induced protein adaptations. The geometrical discrepancies between soaking and cocrystallization appear smaller for fragment‐sized ligands. For larger flexible ligands that trigger conformational changes of the protein, soaking can be misleading and underestimates the number of possible polar interactions due to inadequate, highly impaired positions of protein amino‐acid side and main chain atoms. Thus, if applicable cocrystallization should be the gold standard to study protein–ligand complexes.

Two Methods, One Goal: Structural Differences between Cocrystallization and Crystal Soaking to Discover Ligand Binding Poses