Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5440_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
References 93
36 Pierce, B.G., Wiehe, K., Hwang, H. et al. (2014). ZDOCK server: interactive docking prediction of
protein–protein complexes and symmetric multimers. Bioinformatics 30 (12): 1771–1773.
37 Ramirez-Aportela, E., Lopez-Blanco, J.R., and Chacon, P. (2016). FRODOCK 2.0: fast protein–
protein docking server. Bioinformatics 32 (15): 2386–2388.
38 Ohue, M., Shimoda, T., Suzuki, S. etal. (2014). MEGADOCK 4.0: an ultra-high-performance protein-
protein docking software for heterogeneous supercomputers. Bioinformatics 30 (22): 3281–3283.
39 Inbar, Y., Benyamini, H., Nussinov, R., and Wolfson, H.J. (2003). Protein structure prediction via
combinatorial assembly of sub-structural units. Bioinformatics 19 (Suppl 1): i158–i168.
40 Mashiach, E., Nussinov, R., and Wolfson, H.J. (2010). FiberDock: a web server for flexible induced
fit backbone refinement in molecular docking. Nucleic Acids Research 38 (Web Server Issue):
W457–W461.
41 Bajaj, C., Chowdhury, R., and Siddavanahalli, V. (2011). F2Dock: fast Fourier protein–protein
docking. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 8 (1): 45–58.
42 Verdonk, M.L., Cole, J.C., Hartshorn, M.J. et al. (2003). Improved protein–ligand docking using
GOLD. Proteins 52 (4): 609–623.
43 Jimenez-Garcia, B., Pons, C., and Fernandez-Recio, J. (2013). pyDockWEB: a web server for rigid-
body protein–protein docking using electrostatics and desolvation scoring. Bioinformatics
29 (13): 1698–1699.
44 Vilar, S., Cozza, G., and Moro, S. (2008). Medicinal chemistry and the molecular operating
environment (MOE): application of QSAR and molecular docking to drug discovery. Current Topics
in Medicinal Chemistry 8 (18): 1555–1572.
45 Eberhardt, J., Santos-Martins, D., Tillack, A.F., and Forli, S. (2021). AutoDock Vina 1.2.0: new
docking methods, expanded force field, and python bindings. Journal of Chemical Information and
Modeling 61 (8): 3891–3898.
46 de Almeida Filho, J.L. and Fernandez, J.H. (Eds). (2022). HTP SurflexDock: a web tool for
structure-based virtual screening analysis based on the ensemble docking protocol. Anais do XVI
Brazilian e-Science Workshop, SBC.
47 Bitencourt-Ferreira, G. and de Azevedo, W.F. Jr. (2019). Docking with GemDock. Methods in
Molecular Biology 2053: 169–188.
48 Case, D.A., Cheatham, T.E. 3rd, Darden, T. et al. (2005). The Amber biomolecular simulation
programs. Journal of Computational Chemistry 26 (16): 1668–1688.
49 Brooks, B.R., Brooks, C.L. 3rd, Mackerell, A.D. Jr. et al. (2009). CHARMM: the biomolecular
simulation program. Journal of Computational Chemistry 30 (10): 1545–1614.
50 Abraham, M.J., Murtola, T., Schulz, R. et al. (2015). GROMACS: high performance molecular
simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX 1: 19–25.
51 Ozvoldik, K., Stockner, T., and Krieger, E. (2023). YASARA model-interactive molecular modeling
from two dimensions to virtual realities. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 63 (20):
6177–6182.
52 Thompson, A.P., Aktulga, H.M., Berger, R. et al. (2022). LAMMPS – a flexible simulation tool for
particle-based materials modeling at the atomic, meso, and continuum scales. Computer Physics
Communications 271: 108171.
53 Jung, J., Mori, T., Kobayashi, C. et al. (2015). GENESIS: a hybrid-parallel and multi-scale molecular
dynamics simulator with enhanced sampling algorithms for biomolecular and cellular
simulations. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science 5 (4): 310–323.
54 Jiang, W., Phillips, J.C., Huang, L. et al. (2014). Generalized scalable multiple copy algorithms for
molecular dynamics simulations in NAMD. Computer Physics Communications 185 (3): 908–916.
94
55 Wang, J., Arantes, P.R., Bhattarai, A. et al. (2021). Gaussian accelerated molecular dynamics
(GaMD): principles and applications. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular
Science 11 (5).
56 Pawar, S.S. and Rohane, S.H. (2021). Review on discovery studio: an important tool for molecular
docking. Asian Journal of Research in Chemistry 14 (1): 86–88.
57 Foscato, M., Deeth, R.J., and Jensen, V.R. (2015). Integration of ligand field molecular mechanics
in tinker. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 55 (6): 1282–1290.
58 Eastman, P., Friedrichs, M.S., Chodera, J.D. et al. (2013). OpenMM 4: a reusable, extensible,
hardware independent library for high performance molecular simulation. Journal of Chemical
Theory and Computation 9 (1): 461–469.
59 Wang, Y., Lamim Ribeiro, J.M., and Tiwary, P. (2020). Machine learning approaches for analyzing
and enhancing molecular dynamics simulations. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 61:
139–145.
60 Wolber, G. and Langer, T. (2005). LigandScout: 3-D pharmacophores derived from protein-bound
ligands and their use as virtual screening filters. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
45 (1): 160–169.
61 Chen, I.J. and Foloppe, N. (2008). Conformational sampling of druglike molecules with MOE and
catalyst: implications for pharmacophore modeling and virtual screening. Journal of Chemical
Information and Modeling 48 (9): 1773–1791.
62 VLife M. 3.5 (2008). Molecular Design Suite, 2010. Pune: Vlife Sciences Technologies Pvt Ltd. 63
Schneidman-Duhovny, D., Dror, O., Inbar, Y. et al. (2008). PharmaGist: a webserver for ligand
based pharmacophore detection. Nucleic Acids Research 36 (Web Server Issue): W223–W228.
64 Koes, D.R. and Camacho, C.J. (2011). Pharmer: efficient and exact pharmacophore search. Journal
of Chemical Information and Modeling 51 (6): 1307–1314.
65 Wang, X., Shen, Y., Wang, S. et al. (2017). PharmMapper 2017 update: a web server for potential
drug target identification with a comprehensive target pharmacophore database. Nucleic Acids
Research 45 (W1): W356–W360.
66 Dixon, S.L., Smondyrev, A.M., and Rao, S.N. (2006). PHASE: a novel approach to pharmacophore
modeling and 3D database searching. Chemical Biology & Drug Design 67 (5): 370–372.
67 Ambure, P., Halder, A.K., Gonzalez Diaz, H., and Cordeiro, M. (2019). QSAR-Co: an open source
software for developing robust multitasking or multitarget classification-based QSAR models.
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 59 (6): 2538–2544.
68 Dimitrov, S.D., Diderich, R., Sobanski, T. et al. (2016). QSAR Toolbox – workflow and major
functionalities. SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research 27 (3): 203–219.
69 Vainio, M.J. and Johnson, M.S. (2005). McQSAR: a multiconformational quantitative structure
activity relationship engine driven by genetic algorithms. Journal of Chemical Information and
Modeling 45 (6): 1953–1961.
70 Kolybalov, D.S., Kadtsyn, E.D., and Arkhipov, S.G. (2024). Computer aided structure-based drug
design of novel SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibitors: molecular docking and molecular dynamics
study. Computation 12 (1): 18.
71 Krishnendu, P.R., Benny, S., Kumar, S. et al. (2024). A structure-based approach to explore novel
COX-2 inhibitors using pharmacophore modelling, 3D-QSAR analysis, virtual screening and
dynamics simulation study. Journal of Molecular Structure 1295: 136634.
72 Ghufran, M., Ullah, M., Khan, H.A. et al. (2023). In-silico lead druggable compounds identification
against SARS COVID-19 main protease target from in-house, chembridge and zinc databases by
structure-based virtual screening, molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations.
Bioengineering (Basel) 10 (1).
References 95
73 Khan, A., Adil, S., Qudsia, H.A. etal. (2023). Structure-based design of promising natural products
to inhibit thymidylate kinase from Monkeypox virus and validation using free energy calculations.
Computers in Biology and Medicine 158: 106797.
74 Jha, V., Devkar, S., Gharat, K. et al. (2022). Screening of phytochemicals as potential inhibitors of
breast cancer using structure based multitargeted molecular docking analysis. Phytomedicine Plus
2 (2): 100227.
75 Liu, S.K., Hao, H., Bian, Y. et al. (2021). Discovery of new alpha-glucosidase inhibitors: structure
based virtual screening and biological evaluation. Frontiers in Chemistry 9: 639279.
76 Jin, Z., Wang, Y., Yu, X.F. et al. (2020). Structure-based virtual screening of influenza virus RNA
polymerase inhibitors from natural compounds: molecular dynamics simulation and MM-GBSA
calculation. Computational Biology and Chemistry 85: 107241.
77 Li, C., Liu, Y., Wu, S. et al. (2020). Targeting fungal virulence factor by small molecules: structure
based discovery of novel secreted aspartic protease 2 (SAP2) inhibitors. European Journal of
Medicinal Chemistry 201: 112515.
78 Yang, J., Lin, X., Xing, N. et al. (2021). Structure-based discovery of novel nonpeptide inhibitors
targeting SARS-CoV-2 M(pro). Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 61 (8): 3917–3926.
79 Wang, Y., He, X., Li, C. et al. (2020). Carvedilol serves as a novel CYP1B1 inhibitor, a systematic
drug repurposing approach through structure-based virtual screening and experimental
verification. European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 193: 112235.
80 Pal, S., Kumar, V., Kundu, B. et al. (2019). Ligand-based pharmacophore modeling, virtual
screening and molecular docking studies for discovery of potential topoisomerase I inhibitors.
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 17: 291–310.
81 Kumbhar, N., Nimal, S., Barale, S. et al. (2022). Identification of novel leads as potent inhibitors of
HDAC3 using ligand-based pharmacophore modeling and MD simulation. Scientific Reports
12 (1): 1712.
82 Bhowmik, D., Jagadeesan, R., Rai, P. et al. (2021). Evaluation of potential drugs against
leishmaniasis targeting catalytic subunit of Leishmania donovani nuclear DNA primase using
ligand based virtual screening, docking and molecular dynamics approaches. Journal of
Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics 39 (5): 1838–1852.
83 Sakkiah, S., Thangapandian, S., and Lee, K.W. (2012). Ligand-based virtual screening and molecular
docking studies to identify the critical chemical features of potent cathepsin D inhibitors. Chemical
Biology & Drug Design 80 (1): 64–79.
84 Vazquez-Jimenez, L.K., Juarez-Saldivar, A., Gomez-Escobedo, R. et al. (2022). Ligand-based virtual
screening and molecular docking of benzimidazoles as potential inhibitors of triosephosphate
isomerase identified new trypanocidal agents. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23(17).
97
5.1 Introduction to Virtual Screening and Lead Discovery
5.1.1 Overview of Drug Discovery Process
The process of drug discovery is intricate and financially demanding, encompassing the identification
and advancement of novel therapeutic agents. This multifaceted endeavor unfolds through various
phases, starting with target identification, followed by lead discovery, lead optimization, preclini-
cal evaluations, and ultimately, clinical trials. Each stage plays a crucial role in the development
and validation of potential pharmaceutical candidates, culminating in the delivery of safe and
effective treatments to address diverse medical needs [1].
Efforts to discover new chemical entities and novel structural scaffolds for therapeutic applications
are central to pharmaceutical chemistry. Traditionally, this involves the laborious synthesis of vari-
ous potential structures or the screening of natural products, often leading to chance discoveries
rather than rational approaches. However, recent advancements in computational techniques and
protein crystallography have spurred the adoption of in silico approaches [2], which have become
integral to drug design and discovery in both industrial and academic settings. These approaches,
encompassing genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics, and chemoinformatics, facilitate the identi-
fication and development of potential ligands tailored for specific protein targets, thereby forming
the cornerstone of drug discovery processes. Once potential ligands, or hits, are identified, the next
step involves refining them into active compounds with nonpromiscuous binding behavior, known
as leads. This process, known as lead identification and optimization, is crucial in drug discovery
programs and typically involves medicinal chemists modifying substituents to enhance activity
against a given receptor or disease. Ultimately, these efforts aim to yield compounds with improved
potency and efficacy, often requiring further study of pharmacokinetics and toxicological profiles
through in vivo screening procedures [3–5]. However, challenges persist, particularly in identifying
the target protein and active site, designing inhibitors for membrane proteins, and accounting for
various factors influencing drug interaction. Despite the advances in computational methods, such
as high-throughput screening and virtual screening (VS) approaches, there remains a need to
develop databases and refine concepts to categorize chemical entities as drug-like molecules.
High-throughput screening methods, which involve testing large libraries of compounds for
5
Virtual Screening and Lead Discovery
Nisha Kumari Singh, Nigam Jyoti Maiti, Manshi Mishra, Shantanu Raj,
98
biological activity, have revolutionized drug discovery but also pose challenges in data analysis and
interpretation.
In recent years, researchers have shifted toward “smart” approaches for identifying compounds
with desired biological activity, leveraging innovative computational techniques to process large
datasets effectively. While the initial excitement surrounding combinatorial screening methods
has waned, there is a growing focus on adopting more strategic approaches to identify compounds
with therapeutic potential (Figure 5.1).
5.1.2 Role of Virtual Screening
VS serves as a pivotal computational methodology within drug discovery, aimed at pinpointing
promising drug candidates amidst extensive chemical repositories. This technique significantly
streamlines the compound selection process for experimental evaluation, thereby conserving both
time and resources. VS methodologies are typically categorized into two main approaches:
structure-based virtual screening (SBVS) and ligand-based virtual screening (LBVS) [6, 7], each
offering distinct strategies for identifying compounds with potential therapeutic activity. The
experimental efforts required for the biological screening of billions of compounds remain sub-
stantial, leading to increased interest in computer-aided drug design approaches. VS has emerged
as a dynamic and lucrative technology for identifying novel drug-like compounds, or “hits,” in the
pharmaceutical industry [8]. Utilizing bioactive conformers obtained from structural methods or
molecular modeling, VS employs ligand-based and structure-based approaches to rank novel
ligands by 3D similarity searching or pharmacophore pattern matching. These computational
methods enable the prediction of putative binding affinities between small molecules and biolo-
gical receptors of interest in pharmaceutical research [9–11]. Ligand-based VS, also known as
neighborhood behavior search, involves searching databases of chemical structures to find com-
pounds similar to known actives or possessing common pharmacophores or substructures.
Meanwhile, structure-based VS automates the docking of numerous chemical compounds against
Ligands Protein
3D Pharmacophore
generated
Active compound Lead discovery
Virtual
screening
Lead
optimization
Poly-
pharmacology
Fragment-based
drug design
Exploring
novel target
Figure 5.1 Depicting the drug discovery process.
99
protein-binding or active sites, leveraging the increasing number of available protein 3D structures.
These VS methodologies are categorized based on their principles, with a focus on introducing the
underlying theories and principles behind these procedures. Additionally, this review presents
recent case studies illustrating the application and effectiveness of various VS methods.
5.1.3 Importance of Lead Discovery
Lead discovery is a critical phase in drug development, involving the identification of potential
drug candidates. For instance, VS techniques, such as molecular docking simulations, efficiently
sift through large chemical databases to highlight promising compounds. Examples include iden-
tifying a small molecule that binds to a specific protein target implicated in a disease or discovering
a natural product with therapeutic properties through screening plant extracts [12]. Early identifi-
cation of these lead compounds, like a novel kinase inhibitor for cancer treatment or an antiviral
peptide derived from marine organisms, accelerates drug development and reduces costs by expe-
diting subsequent optimization and testing processes.
5.2 Molecular Targets and Biomolecular Structures
The study of molecular targets and biomolecular structures is fundamental to various fields, includ-
ing molecular biology, biochemistry, pharmacology, and structural biology. It provides insights into
how biological processes occur at the molecular level and informs the development of therapies and
interventions for a wide range of diseases and conditions [7, 13]. Researchers continue to explore
these concepts to deepen our understanding of life processes and to advance medical science.
Molecular targets are specific biological molecules, like proteins or DNA sequences, crucial for vari-
ous cellular functions and often associated with diseases. Biomolecular structures refer to the three-
dimensional arrangements of these molecules, determining their functions. Understanding these
structures is vital for scientific fields like molecular biology, pharmacology, and structural biol-
ogy [14], as it enables the development of treatments and enhances our knowledge of life processes.
Techniques like X-ray crystallography and NMR spectroscopy help in determining these structures at
different levels, from the linear sequence to the overall three-dimensional folding of biomolecules.
5.3 Virtual Screening Approaches
VS approaches are essential tools in drug discovery, allowing researchers to identify potential drug
candidates from large chemical libraries using computational methods. There are three primary
VS approaches.
5.3.1 Structure-based Virtual Screening
SBVS is a computational drug discovery approach that utilizes the three-dimensional structures of
target proteins to screen and identify potential ligands from large compound libraries. SBVS relies
on molecular docking algorithms to predict the binding affinity and orientation of small molecules
within the active site of a target protein. By analyzing the interactions between the ligand and the
target protein, SBVS helps in identifying lead compounds with high binding affinities and favorable
pharmacological properties, thus accelerating the drug discovery process [15–18].
100
SBVS relies on the knowledge of a target protein’s three-dimensional structure, often obtained
through techniques like X-ray crystallography or homology modeling. Key points include:
● Utilization of the target protein’s 3D structure.
● Prediction of potential drug compounds’ interaction with the protein’s active site.
● Screening of compound libraries to identify molecules that fit well with the protein’s structure
and have therapeutic potential.
● Valuable when the protein’s structure is known or can be accurately predicted.
5.3.2 Ligand-based Virtual Screening
LBVS is a computational drug discovery approach that focuses on the chemical properties and
structural features of known ligands (or active compounds) rather than the three-dimensional
structure of the target protein. LBVS methods analyze the similarities between the molecular
descriptors or fingerprints of reference ligands and those of compounds in a chemical database.
The goal is to identify new molecules with similar structural and chemical features to known
active compounds, thus potentially possessing similar biological activities [19, 20].
LBVS does not require the target protein’s structure but instead focuses on known ligands (small
molecules) that bind to the target. Key aspects are:
● Utilization of data from known ligands or active compounds.
● Analysis of structural and chemical properties to identify common features or patterns.
● Search for molecules in chemical libraries with similar properties, potentially having similar
biological activity.
● Particularly useful when the protein structure is unavailable or hard to obtain.
5.3.3 Hybrid Approaches
Hybrid approaches in SBVS and LBVS refer to integrating methodologies from both SBVS and
LBVS to improve the accuracy and efficiency of VS in drug discovery [21, 22]. These hybrid
approaches leverage the strengths of both SBVS, which utilizes the three-dimensional structure of
the target protein, and LBVS, which focuses on the chemical properties of ligands, to overcome
limitations associated with each method when used independently [23]. One common hybrid
approach involves using structural information from SBVS to refine the results obtained from
LBVS or vice versa. For example, after identifying potential hits through LBVS, these compounds
can be docked into the active site of the target protein using SBVS techniques to assess their bind-
ing modes and interactions. Another hybrid strategy involves combining molecular descriptors
derived from ligand-based methods with structural information obtained from target proteins to
develop more accurate predictive models for VS [24].
Hybrid approaches combine elements of SBVS and LBVS to enhance VS accuracy. These
approaches involve:
● Integration of information from both protein structure (SBVS) and ligand data (LBVS).
● Improvement of the screening process by considering multiple factors, including protein–ligand
interactions and ligand similarity.
● Increased likelihood of identifying potential drug candidates with desired properties [25]
(Figure 5.2).
101
5.4 Databases and Compound Collections
5.4.1 Overview of Chemical Databases
“Chemical Databases” encompass repositories of structured chemical information, including
molecular structures, properties, reactions, and associated data, utilized across various scientific
disciplines for research, education, and industrial applications. These databases serve as vital
resources for chemists, biochemists, pharmacologists, and other researchers, enabling efficient
storage, retrieval, and analysis of chemical data. An overview of chemical databases includes
various types and examples [8]:
Public databases: These freely accessible databases provide extensive collections of chemical
information to the scientific community and the general public. Examples include:
PubChem: Maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), PubChem
is a comprehensive chemical database containing information on millions of chemical compounds,
including their structures, properties, bioactivities, and references to the literature.
ChemSpider: Curated by the Royal Society of Chemistry, ChemSpider is a chemical structure
database offering access to over 67 million chemical compounds, along with their properties,
spectral data, and literature references.
Commercial databases: These databases, typically requiring a subscription or license, offer
curated chemical data and specialized tools for research and industry. Examples include:
Reaxys: Provided by Elsevier, Reaxys is a web-based chemistry database offering access to a vast
collection of organic, inorganic, and organometallic compounds, along with their properties,
reactions, and synthesis information.
Virtual screening approaches
LBVS
SBVS
Protein
ligand
Binding complex
Hybrid approach
Integrate information from
protein structure (SBVS) and
ligand data (LBVS)
Utilize data from known
ligands or active compounds
Desired 3-D structure of protein
Homology modeling
X-ray crystallography
Analyze structural and
chemical properties
Identify common
features or patterns
Consider multiple factors:
protein-ligand interactions
and ligand similarity
Enhance screening process
Increase likelihood of
identifying potential drug
candidate
Search chemical libraries for
molecules with similar
properties
Potentially identify
molecules with similar
biological activity
Figure 5.2 Workflow for the virtual screening approaches in the drug discovery process.
102
Scifinder: Offered by the American Chemical Society, Scifinder is a comprehensive research
tool providing access to chemical literature, patents, and substance information, facilitating
searches for chemical compounds, reactions, and related data [26–30].
Specialized databases: These databases focus on specific areas of chemistry or research inter-
ests, providing tailored data and tools. Examples include:
ChEMBL: Hosted by the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), ChEMBL is a bioac-
tivity database offering information on the biological activities of small molecules, including drugs,
experimental compounds, and natural products, along with their targets and assay data.
DrugBank: DrugBank is a comprehensive resource providing information on drugs, drug
targets, and related data, including chemical structures, pharmacological actions, and drug
interactions.
Chemical databases play a crucial role in scientific research, education, and industrial applica-
tions, facilitating the exploration, analysis, and utilization of chemical compounds and their prop-
erties across diverse fields of study.
5.4.2 Compound Filtering and Preparation
Before VS, compounds sourced from chemical databases often undergo filtering and preparation
steps to enhance their suitability for analysis. Filtering involves the exclusion of compounds that
do not meet specific criteria, such as drug-likeness or safety considerations, ensuring that only
relevant candidates are retained for further investigation. Subsequently, compound preparation
tasks are carried out, including the generation of three-dimensional structures and energy minimi-
zation to optimize molecular geometries. These preparatory measures ensure that the compounds
are in an optimal state for subsequent VS simulations, thereby facilitating more accurate predic-
tions and efficient identification of potential drug candidates [31, 32].
5.4.3 Diversity and Size of Compound Collections
The diversity of compound collections plays a crucial role in conducting comprehensive VS pro-
cesses. Such collections, encompassing a broad spectrum of chemical structures, significantly
enhance the likelihood of identifying novel drug candidates. These collections can vary greatly in
size, ranging from thousands to millions of compounds, depending on the database or resource
utilized. While larger collections offer more extensive screening possibilities, they also demand
substantial computational resources to execute effectively [33].
5.5 Molecular Docking
5.5.1 Principles of Molecular Docking
Molecular docking stands as a vital computational tool in drug discovery, aiming to predict the
interaction between a small molecule (known as a ligand) and a biological target, commonly a
protein (receptor). The primary objective is to ascertain the most energetically favorable binding
pose of the ligand within the binding site of the receptor. Leveraging principles of molecular phys-
ics and chemistry, molecular docking simulations simulate these interactions, offering insights
into the potential binding modes and affinities between the ligand and receptor [34, 35].