11 ms·
Yes, the chemical structures can look very different when drawn in the 2D manner, but that's why 2D structures aren't very useful for understanding binding, muc
by jhbadger 2y ago
Yes, the chemical structures can look very different when drawn in the 2D manner, but that's why 2D structures aren't very useful for understanding binding, much as primary sequences of proteins aren't that useful. Morphine and fentanyl bind to μ-opioid receptors, just like what naturally binds there (endorphins and enkephalin). But if they are binding to the same receptor, they have to have similar structures in the biologically meaningful 3D sense (at least where they bind).
- trott 2y agoYou originally wrote: > very, very, few drugs are "novel" as opposed to being analogues of something naturally in the body But "analog" means "structural analog" in this context (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_analog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_analog ), which is why people disagreed with you, presumably. It appears that you were merely saying that ligands must adopt a 3D conformation that's complementary to the receptor. Sure. That's the entire premise of molecular docking software. But there can be very dissimilar ligands (like morphine and fentanyl) binding the same receptors. A major goal of drug discovery is to find such novel binders, not to regurgitate known ones.