The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Moe 2020

Manufactured by Chemical Computing Group
Sourced in Canada

MOE 2020.09 is a software suite developed by Chemical Computing Group for molecular modeling and drug discovery. It provides a wide range of tools for visualization, analysis, and manipulation of chemical structures and biological data. The core function of MOE 2020.09 is to enable researchers and scientists to explore and understand the properties and behaviors of molecules and their interactions.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

Lab products found in correlation

15 protocols using moe 2020

1

Structural Optimization and Docking of Mn2+ Complex

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Firstly, the structure of the Mn 2+ -complex was drawn in Marvinsketch v21.11 (Chemaxon Ltd; https://chemaxon.com) enabling correct assignment of coordinate bonding. The resulting structure was 'cleaned' in 3D and saved in .gjf format for input into the Gaussian 16 revC.01 package (Gaussian Inc.
340 Quinnipiac st., Bldg. 40, Wallingford CT 06492, USA). The molecular structure of the Mn 2+ -complex was subsequently optimized in water as a solvent via the hybrid B3LYP (Becke-3 Parameter-Lee-Yang-Parr) [35] (link) DFT (Density Functional Theory) method in GEN mode to enable assignment in the calculation of the 6-31G** and LANL2DZ basis sets, to atoms H, O, C, N and Mn respectively. Gaussview 6 (Gaussian Inc. 340 Quinnipiac st., Bldg. 40, Wallingford CT 06492, USA) was next used to examine the structures of all converged structures and the nal optimized structure was exported in .pdb le format.
The Mn 2+ -complex was subsequently imported into MOE 2020.09 (Chemical Computing Group ULC; https://www.chemcomp.com/) and docked to PDB entry 1XQ8 with triangle matching placement and scoring with the London dG scoring function. Subsequent re nement of all docked poses using the GBVI/WSA dG scoring function with induced t was undertaken. Finally, the top docked pose was manipulated and visualized also using MOE 2020.09 (Chemical Computing Group ULC; https://www.chemcomp.com/).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Structural Optimization and Docking of Mn2+ Complex

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Firstly, the structure of the Mn 2+ -complex was drawn in Marvinsketch v21.11 (Chemaxon Ltd; https://chemaxon.com) enabling correct assignment of coordinate bonding. The resulting structure was 'cleaned' in 3D and saved in .gjf format for input into the Gaussian 16 revC.01 package (Gaussian Inc.
340 Quinnipiac st., Bldg. 40, Wallingford CT 06492, USA). The molecular structure of the Mn 2+ -complex was subsequently optimized in water as a solvent via the hybrid B3LYP (Becke-3 Parameter-Lee-Yang-Parr) [35] (link) DFT (Density Functional Theory) method in GEN mode to enable assignment in the calculation of the 6-31G** and LANL2DZ basis sets, to atoms H, O, C, N and Mn respectively. Gaussview 6 (Gaussian Inc. 340 Quinnipiac st., Bldg. 40, Wallingford CT 06492, USA) was next used to examine the structures of all converged structures and the nal optimized structure was exported in .pdb le format.
The Mn 2+ -complex was subsequently imported into MOE 2020.09 (Chemical Computing Group ULC; https://www.chemcomp.com/) and docked to PDB entry 1XQ8 with triangle matching placement and scoring with the London dG scoring function. Subsequent re nement of all docked poses using the GBVI/WSA dG scoring function with induced t was undertaken. Finally, the top docked pose was manipulated and visualized also using MOE 2020.09 (Chemical Computing Group ULC; https://www.chemcomp.com/).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Molecular Docking Protocol for Protein-Ligand Binding

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
PDB structures were prepared for molecular docking experiments using the protein structural preparation tool followed by Protonate3D, as implemented in the Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) 2020.09 (Chemical Computing Group, Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada, http://www.chemcomp.com). Ligand structures were built with MOE and minimized using the MM-FF94x force field until a root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) gradient of 0.05 kcal/(mol Å) was reached. In the first step for protein preparation, we preprocessed the structure using the standard protocol, which included the assigning of bond orders, the adding of hydrogens, the creating of disulfide bonds, and the prediction of the structural protonation state at a physiological pH of 7.4. The structure was subjected to a short energy minimization routine to relax it using the Amber 99 force field as implemented in MOE. The following standard parameters were selected: receptor van der Waals scaling, 0.50; ligand van der Waals scaling, 0.50; and a maximum of 20 poses per ligand. The best docking pose for 14 was selected based on the lowest RMSD value, which was 1.7 Å.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Determining Optimal VHH Linker Length

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Following domain binning and HDX epitope mapping, the approximate epitope and binding location of many monomeric VHHs against the spike protein were determined. To calculate the length of the desired linker between two VHHs, the distance between the center of the known epitope was measured in both the open and closed state of the spike protein in MOE 2020.09 (Chemical Computing Group). To account for cases where the shortest distance between two sites would result in a clash and to account for the unknown binding orientation of the VHH in relation to the spike protein (where the terminus would be located), an additional buffer distance was added to the initial measurement. Given that an amino acid can cover 3.5–4.0 angstroms in an extended conformation, the measured distance was then converted to a minimum number of amino acids that would be required to bridge such a distance. The resulting number of amino acids was then further converted to the minimum number of linker subunits that could connect the two sites.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Molecular Docking of CRG Tetrasaccharides with HSV-1 gD

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The structures of kappa-, beta-, iota- and lambda-CRG tetrasacharides were obtained using the molecular editor of the MOE 2020.0901 program [Molecular Operating Environment (MOE), 2020.09; Chemical Computing Group ULC, 1010 Sherbrooke St. West, Suite #910, Montreal, QC, Canada, H3A 2R7, 2020]. For molecular docking, CRG tetrasacharides structures were used, which were solvated in the aqueous phase and optimised with the forcefield Amber10:EHT. The crystal structures of the complexes of the HSV-1 gD glycoprotein with the HSEA/M receptor (PDB ID 1JMA) were used as a target protein. The calculation of the electrostatic potential of the molecular surface of glycoprotein gD was carried out using the MOE 2019.01 program. Molecular docking of glycoprotein gD with the CRG tetrasacharides was performed using the Dock module of the MOE 2020.09 software. The structures of 30 complexes were calculated with Score London dG, and the 5 most energetically advantageous complexes were optimised with Score GBVI/WSA dG. Contact analysis was carried out using the Ligand Interaction module of the MOE program.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Structural Analysis of Glucosidase and Amylase

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The X-ray structure of the α-glucosidase enzyme (PDB: 2QMJ) and α-amylase (PDB: 1XCW) were downloaded from the protein databank (PDB) website (https://www.rcsb.org/), at a resolution of 1.90 Å and 2.00 Å respectively. All the molecular modeling and docking studies were carried out using MOE 2020.09 (Chemical Computing Group, Canada) as the computational software. First, all the hydrogen atoms were added using the Protonate 3D algorithm where the protonation states of the amino acid residues were assigned, and the partial charges of atoms were added. In addition, the compounds were drawn using the builder tool and energy was minimized using the MMFF94× force field. MOE induced-fit Dock tool used to dock the synthesized compounds into the active site. The selection of the final docked ligand–enzyme poses was according to the criteria of binding energy score and combined with ligand–receptor interactions.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

In silico Molecular Modeling Protocol

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
In silico calculations were performed in Molecular Operating Environment (MOE), 2020.09 (Chemical Computing Group ULC, Montreal, QC, Canada). A full description of the methodology used can be found in Supplementary Material S3.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Molecular Docking and MD Simulations

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Inputs for molecular docking and MD were prepared in Molecular Operating Environment (MOE), 2020.09 (Chemical Computing Group ULC, Montreal, QC, Canada). The docking was run in MOE. MD simulations were run in NAMD2 [44 (link)] (version GIT20190909) and analysed in VMD version (1.9.4a51) [45 (link)]. For experimental details, see the Supplementary Material.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

Anti-Candida Peptide Sequence Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Computational analysis was performed starting from three previously described peptides endowed with anti-Candida activity. In particular, peptides K10S (KKVTMTCSAS) [19 (link)], D5A (TCRVAHRGLTF) [20 (link)], and N1A (AQVSLTCLVK) [21 (link)] were selected to determine the correspondences between residues of the three sequences. For this purpose, we exploited MOE’s sequence alignment tool, a modified version of the alignment methodology originally introduced into molecular biology by Needleman (Molecular Operating Environment, MOE, 2020.09, Chemical Computing Group ULC, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2020). The alignment was computed through a function based on residue similarity score (obtained from applying BLOSUM 40 substitution matrix) and gap penalties. Starting from the amino acidic sequence of K10S peptide, random peptides were generated through sample sequence methodology and analyzed through the mutational analysis tool.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
10

Homology Modeling of GS1.1 Binding

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
To identify the residues involved in GFA binding into GS1.1, the protein crystal structure of Zea mays GS1 (PDB 2D3A) was used as a template to build a homology model for A. palmeri. L-glufosinate was docked into the GS1.1 binding site. To guide the docking, we used the GFA binding mode from the protein crystal structure of Salmonella (1FPY). Molecular modeling was done using Molecular Operating Environment (MOE) 2020.09 software package (Chemical Computing Group ULC 2022 ).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required

Sign up now

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!