Scripps Research Institute
US
Researchers
Public research profiles associated with Scripps Research Institute.
Michel F. Sanner
William Lindstrom
Ruth Huey
Garrett M. Morris
Arthur J. Olson
Oleg Trott
Eric J. Topol
Luc Teyton
Colin A. Smith
Alyssa Shepard
Joseph L. Kissil
K. Barry Sharpless
M. G. Finn
Mehrdad Alirezaei
Research from this institution
Publications linked through researcher authorship records.
AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading
AutoDock Vina, a new program for molecular docking and virtual screening, is presented. AutoDock Vina achieves an approximately two orders of magnitude speed-up compared with the molecular docking software previously developed in our lab (AutoDock 4), while also significantly improving the accuracy of the binding mode predictions, judging by our tests on the training set used in AutoDock 4 development. Further speed-up is achieved from parallelism, by using multithreading on multicore machines. AutoDock Vina automatically calculates the grid maps and clusters the results in a way transparent to the user.
AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility
We describe the testing and release of AutoDock4 and the accompanying graphical user interface AutoDockTools. AutoDock4 incorporates limited flexibility in the receptor. Several tests are reported here, including a redocking experiment with 188 diverse ligand-protein complexes and a cross-docking experiment using flexible sidechains in 87 HIV protease complexes. We also report its utility in analysis of covalently bound ligands, using both a grid-based docking method and a modification of the flexible sidechain technique.
Click Chemistry: Diverse Chemical Function from a Few Good Reactions
Examination of nature's favorite molecules reveals a striking preference for making carbon–heteroatom bonds over carbon–carbon bonds—surely no surprise given that carbon dioxide is nature's starting material and that most reactions are performed in water. Nucleic acids, proteins, and polysaccharides are condensation polymers of small subunits stitched together by carbon–heteroatom bonds. Even the 35 or so building blocks from which these crucial molecules are made each contain, at most, six contiguous C−C bonds, except for the three aromatic amino acids. Taking our cue from nature's approach, we address here the development of a set of powerful, highly reliable, and selective reactions for the rapid synthesis of useful new compounds and combinatorial libraries through heteroatom links (C−X−C), an approach we call “click chemistry”. Click chemistry is at once defined, enabled, and constrained by a handful of nearly perfect “spring-loaded” reactions. The stringent criteria for a process to earn click chemistry status are described along with examples of the molecular frameworks that are easily made using this spartan, but powerful, synthetic strategy.
Bioconductor: open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics
The Bioconductor project is an initiative for the collaborative creation of extensible software for computational biology and bioinformatics. The goals of the project include: fostering collaborative development and widespread use of innovative software, reducing barriers to entry into interdisciplinary scientific research, and promoting the achievement of remote reproducibility of research results. We describe details of our aims and methods, identify current challenges, compare Bioconductor to other open bioinformatics projects, and provide working examples.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)
In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is thatthere is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the completeprocess including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increasedautophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in manycases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as forreviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multipleassays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagyrelated protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
The Biology of NKT Cells
Recognized more than a decade ago, NKT cells differentiate from mainstream thymic precursors through instructive signals emanating during TCR engagement by CD1d-expressing cortical thymocytes. Their semi-invariant alphabeta TCRs recognize isoglobotrihexosylceramide, a mammalian glycosphingolipid, as well as microbial alpha-glycuronylceramides found in the cell wall of Gram-negative, lipopolysaccharide-negative bacteria. This dual recognition of self and microbial ligands underlies innate-like antimicrobial functions mediated by CD40L induction and massive Th1 and Th2 cytokine and chemokine release. Through reciprocal activation of NKT cells and dendritic cells, synthetic NKT ligands constitute promising new vaccine adjuvants. NKT cells also regulate a range of immunopathological conditions, but the mechanisms and the ligands involved remain unknown. NKT cell biology has emerged as a new field of research at the frontier between innate and adaptive immunity, providing a powerful model to study fundamental aspects of the cell and structural biology of glycolipid trafficking, processing, and recognition.
The naked truth: a comprehensive clarification and classification of current ‘myths’ in naked mole‐rat biology
The naked mole-rat (Heterocephalus glaber) has fascinated zoologists for at least half a century. It has also generated considerable biomedical interest not only because of its extraordinary longevity, but also because of unusual protective features (e.g. its tolerance of variable oxygen availability), which may be pertinent to several human disease states, including ischemia/reperfusion injury and neurodegeneration. A recent article entitled 'Surprisingly long survival of premature conclusions about naked mole-rat biology' described 28 'myths' which, those authors claimed, are a 'perpetuation of beautiful, but falsified, hypotheses' and impede our understanding of this enigmatic mammal. Here, we re-examine each of these 'myths' based on evidence published in the scientific literature. Following Braude et al., we argue that these 'myths' fall into four main categories: (i) 'myths' that would be better described as oversimplifications, some of which persist solely in the popular press; (ii) 'myths' that are based on incomplete understanding, where more evidence is clearly needed; (iii) 'myths' where the accumulation of evidence over the years has led to a revision in interpretation, but where there is no significant disagreement among scientists currently working in the field; (iv) 'myths' where there is a genuine difference in opinion among active researchers, based on alternative interpretations of the available evidence. The term 'myth' is particularly inappropriate when applied to competing, evidence-based hypotheses, which form part of the normal evolution of scientific knowledge. Here, we provide a comprehensive critical review of naked mole-rat biology and attempt to clarify some of these misconceptions.