Molecular Modeling of Proteins pp 365-382

Part of the Methods Molecular Biology™ book series (MIMB, volume 443) | Cite as

Molecular Docking

  • Garrett M. Morris
  • Marguerita Lim-Wilby

Summary

Molecular docking is a key tool in structural molecular biology and computer-assisted drug design. The goal of ligand—protein docking is to predict the predominant binding mode(s) of a ligand with a protein of known three-dimensional structure. Successful docking methods search high-dimensional spaces effectively and use a scoring function that correctly ranks candidate dockings. Docking can be used to perform virtual screening on large libraries of compounds, rank the results, and propose structural hypotheses of how the ligands inhibit the target, which is invaluable in lead optimization. The setting up of the input structures for the docking is just as important as the docking itself, and analyzing the results of stochastic search methods can sometimes be unclear. This chapter discusses the background and theory of molecular docking software, and covers the usage of some of the most-cited docking software.

Keywords

AutoDock Computer-assisted drug design DOCK FlexX GOLD ICM Molecular recognition Protein—ligand docking 

References

  1. 1.
    1. Hendlich, M. (1998) Databases for protein-ligand complexes. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr, 54(Pt 6 Pt 1): 1178–1182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    2. Hu, L., Benson, M.L., Smith, R.D., Lerner, M.G., and Carlson, H.A. (2005) Binding MOAD (Mother Of All Databases). Proteins, 60(3): 333–340.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    3. Irwin, J.J. and Shoichet, B.K. (2005) ZINC—a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model, 45(1): 177–182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    4. Berman, H.M., Westbrook, J., Feng, Z., Gilliland, G., Bhat, T.N., Weissig, H., Shindyalov, I.N., and Bourne, P.E. (2000) The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res, 28(1): 235–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    5. Pozzan, A. (2006) Molecular descriptors and methods for ligand based virtual high throughput screening in drug discovery. Curr Pharm Des, 12(17): 2099–2110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    6. Hawkins, P.C., Skillman, A.G., and Nicholls, A. (2007) Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools. J Med Chem, 50(1): 74–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    7. Sousa, S.F., Fernandes, P.A., and Ramos, M.J. (2006) Protein-ligand docking: Current status and future challenges. Proteins, 65(1): 15–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    8. Morris, G.M., Goodsell, D.S., Halliday, R.S., Huey, R., Hart, W.E., Belew, R.K., and Olson, A.J. (1998) Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J Comput Chem, 19: 1639–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    9. Morris, G.M., Goodsell, D.S., Huey, R., and Olson, A.J. (1996) Distributed automated docking of flexible ligands to proteins: parallel applications of AutoDock 2.4. J Comput Aided Mol Des, 10(4): 293–304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    10. Goodsell, D.S. and Olson, A.J. (1990) Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing. Proteins, 8(3): 195–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    11. Ewing, T.J.A. and Kuntz, I.D. (1997) Critical evaluation of search algorithms for automated molecular docking and database screening. J Comput Chem, 18(9): 1175–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    12. Kuntz, I.D., Blaney, J.M., Oatley, S.J., Langridge, R., and Ferrin, T.E. (1982) A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol, 161(2): 269–288.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    13. Rarey, M., Kramer, B., Lengauer, T., and Klebe, G. (1996) A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol, 261(3): 470–489.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    14. Jones, G., Willett, P., Glen, R.C., Leach, A.R., and Taylor, R. (1997) Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J Mol Biol, 267(3): 727–748.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    15. Jones, G., Willett, P., and Glen, R.C. (1995) Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation. J Mol Biol, 245(1): 43–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    16. Abagyan, R.A., Totrov, M.M., and Kuznetzov, D.A. (1994) ICM—a new method for protein modeling and design: applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 15: 488–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    17. Taylor, R.D., Jewsbury, P.J., and Essex, J.W. (2002) A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J Comput Aided Mol Des, 16(3): 151–166.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    18. Bissantz, C., Folkers, G., and Rognan, D. (2000) Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J Med Chem, 43(25): 4759–4767.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    19. Friesner, R.A., Banks, J.L., Murphy, R.B., Halgren, T.A., Klicic, J.J., Mainz, D.T., Repasky, M.P., Knoll, E.H., Shelley, M., Perry, J.K., Shaw, D.E., Francis, P., and Shenkin, P.S. (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem, 47(7): 1739–1749.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    20. Halgren, T.A., Murphy, R.B., Friesner, R.A., Beard, H.S., Frye, L.L., Pollard, W.T., and Banks, J.L. (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J Med Chem, 47(7): 1750–1759.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    21. Kellenberger, E., Rodrigo, J., Muller, P., and Rognan, D. (2004) Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins, 57(2): 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    22. Kontoyianni, M., McClellan, L.M., and Sokol, G.S. (2004) Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms. J Med Chem, 47(3): 558–565.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    23. Perola, E., Walters, W.P., and Charifson, P.S. (2004) A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins, 56(2): 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    24. Evans, D.A. and Neidle, S. (2006) Virtual screening of DNA minor groove binders. J Med Chem, 49(14): 4232–4238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    25. Evers, A., Hessler, G., Matter, H., and Klabunde, T. (2005) Virtual screening of biogenic amine-binding G-protein coupled receptors: comparative evaluation of protein- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols. J Med Chem, 48(17): 5448–5465.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    26. Cummings, M.D., DesJarlais, R.L., Gibbs, A.C., Mohan, V., and Jaeger, E.P. (2005) Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. J Med Chem, 48(4): 962–976.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    27. Cotesta, S., Giordanetto, F., Trosset, J.Y., Crivori, P., Kroemer, R.T., Stouten, P.F., and Vulpetti, A. (2005) Virtual screening to enrich a compound collection with CDK2 inhibitors using docking, scoring, and composite scoring models. Proteins, 60(4): 629–643.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    28. Cole, J.C., Murray, C.W., Nissink, J.W., Taylor, R.D., and Taylor, R. (2005) Comparing protein-ligand docking programs is difficult. Proteins, 60(3): 325–332.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    29. Vigers, G.P. and Rizzi, J.P. (2004) Multiple active site corrections for docking and virtual screening. J Med Chem, 47(1): 80–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    30. Solis, F.J. and Wets, R.J.-B. (1981) Minimization by random search techniques. Mathematical Operations Research, 6: 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    31. Conn, A.R., Gould, N.I.M., and Toint, P.L. (1991) A globally convergent augmented Lagrangian pattern search algorithm for optimization with general constraints and simple bounds. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 28(2): 545–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    32. Kirkpatrick, S., C. D. Gelatt, J., and Vecchi, M.P. (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science, 220(4598): 671–680.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    33. Holland, J.H., Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. 1992, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 211.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    34. Goldberg, D.E., Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. 1st ed. 1989, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. 372.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    35. Michalewicz, Z., Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Program. 3rd ed. 1996, London, UK: Springer-Verlag. 387.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    36. de Graaf, C., Oostenbrink, C., Keizers, P.H., van der Wijst, T., Jongejan, A., and Vermeulen, N.P. (2006) Catalytic site prediction and virtual screening of cytochrome P450 2D6 substrates by consideration of water and rescoring in automated docking. J Med Chem, 49(8): 2417– 2430.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    37. Diller, D.J. and Li, R. (2003) Kinases, homology models, and high throughput docking. J Med Chem, 46(22): 4638–4647.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    38. Evers, A. and Klabunde, T. (2005) Structure-based drug discovery using GPCR homology modeling: successful virtual screening for antagonists of the alpha1A adrenergic receptor. J Med Chem, 48(4): 1088–1097.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    39. Shoichet, B.K., McGovern, S.L., Wei, B., and Irwin, J.J. (2002) Lead discovery using molecular docking. Curr Opin Chem Biol, 6(4): 439–446.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    40. Murray, C.W., Baxter, C.A., and Frenkel, A.D. (1999) The sensitivity of the results of molecular docking to induced fit effects: application to thrombin, thermolysin and neuraminidase. J Comput Aided Mol Des, 13(6): 547–562.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    41. Gunasekaran, K. and Nussinov, R. (2007) How different are structurally flexible and rigid binding sites? Sequence and structural features discriminating proteins that do and do not undergo conformational change upon ligand binding. J Mol Biol, 365(1): 257–273.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    42. Alonso, H., Bliznyuk, A.A., and Gready, J.E. (2006) Combining docking and molecular dynamic simulations in drug design. Med Res Rev, 26(5): 531–568.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    43. Lin, J.H., Perryman, A.L., Schames, J.R., and McCammon, J.A. (2002) Computational drug design accommodating receptor flexibility: The relaxed complex scheme. J Am Chem Soc, 124(20): 5632–5633.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    44. Case, D.A., Pearlman, D.A., Caldwell, J.W., Cheatham, T.E., III, Ross, W.S., Simmerling, C.L., Darden, T.A., Merz, K.M., Stanton, R.V., Cheng, A.L., Vincent, J.J., Crowley, M., Ferguson, D.M., Radmer, R.J., Seibel, G.L., Singh, U.C., Weiner, P.K., and Kollman, P.A. (1997) AMBER 5 University of California: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    45. Case, D.A., Pearlman, D.A., Caldwell, J.W., Cheatham, T.E., III, J., W., Ross, W.S., C., S., Darden, T., Merz, K.M., Stanton, R.V., Cheng, A., Vincent, J.J., Crowley, M., V., T., Gohlke, R.R., Duan, Y., Pitera, J., Massova, I., Seibel, G.L., Singh, C., Weiner, P., and Kollman, P.A. (2002) AMBER 7 University of California: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    46. Phillips, J.C., Braun, R., Wang, W., Gumbart, J., Tajkhorshid, E., Villa, E., Chipot, C., Skeel, R.D., Kale, L., and Schulten, K. (2005) Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD. J Comput Chem, 26: 1781–1802.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    47. Schames, J.R., Henchman, R.H., Siegel, J.S., Sotriffer, C.A., Ni, H., and McCammon, J.A. (2004) Discovery of a novel binding trench in HIV integrase. J Med Chem, 47(8): 1879–1881.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gastreich, M., Lilienthal, M., Briem, H., and Claussen, H. (2006) Ultrafast de novo docking: combining pharmacophores and combinatorics. J Comput Aided Mol Des, in press.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    49. Gasteiger, J. and Marsili, M. (1978) A new model for calculating atomic charges in molecules. Tetrahedron Lett., 34: 3181–3184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    50. Mulakala, C., Nerinckx, W., and Reilly, P.J. (2006) Docking studies on glycoside hydrolase Family 47 endoplasmic reticulum alpha-(1 → 2)-mannosidase I to elucidate the pathway to the substrate transition state. Carbohydrate Research, 341(13): 2233–2245.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    51. Laederach, A. and Reilly, P.J. (2005) Modeling protein recognition of carbohydrates. Proteins-Structure Function and Bioinformatics, 60(4): 591–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    52. Rockey, W.M., Laederach, A., and Reilly, P.J. (2000) Automated docking of alpha-(1 → 4)-and alpha-(1 → 6)-linked glucosyl trisaccharides and maltopentaose into the soybean beta-amylase active site. Proteins-Structure Function and Genetics, 40(2): 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    53. Rarey, M., Kramer, B., and Lengauer, T. (1995) Time-efficient docking of flexible ligands into active sites of proteins. Proc Int Conf Intell Syst Mol Biol, 3: 300–308.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gasteiger, J. and Sadowski, J. (1992) CORINA 3.4, Molecular Networks GmbH: Erlangen, Germany, http://www.molecular-networks.com/onlinedemos/corinademo.html.
  55. 55.
    55. Gasteiger, J., Rudolph, C., and Sadowski, J. (1992) Automatic generation of 3D-atomic coordinates for organic molecules. Tetrahedron Comput. Methodol., 3: 537–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pearlman, R.S. and Balducci, R. Confort: A Novel Algorithm For Conformational Analysis. in National Meeting of the American Chemical Society. 1998. New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ten Eyck, L.F., Mandell, J., Roberts, V.A., and Pique, M.E., Surveying Molecular Interactions With DOT. 1995.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    58. Vakser, I.A. (1997) Evaluation of GRAMM low-resolution docking methodology on the hemagglutinin-antibody complex. Proteins, Suppl 1: 226–230.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    59. Tovchigrechko, A. and Vakser, I.A. (2006) GRAMM-X public web server for protein-protein docking. Nucleic Acids Res, 34(Web Server issue): W310–314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    60. Chen, R. and Weng, Z. (2002) Docking unbound proteins using shape complementarity, desolvation, and electrostatics. Proteins, 47(3): 281–294.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    61. Mohan, V., Gibbs, A.C., Cummings, M.D., Jaeger, E.P., and DesJarlais, R.L. (2005) Docking: successes and challenges. Curr Pharm Des, 11(3): 323–333.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    62. Cornell, W.D., Cieplak, P., Bayly, C.I., Gould, I.R., Merz, J., Kenneth M., Ferguson, D.M., Spellmeyer, D.C., Fox, T., Caldwell, J.W., and Kollman, P.A. (1995) A second generation force field for the simulation of proteins, nucleic acids, and organic molecules. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 117: 5179–5197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    63. Huey, R., Morris, G.M., Olson, A.J., and Goodsell, D.S. (2007) A semiempirical free energy force field with charge-based desolvation. J Comput Chem, 28(6): 1145–1152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    64. Böhm, H.-J. (1994) The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure. J Comput Aided Mol Des, 8(3): 243–256.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    65. Rosenfeld, R.J., Goodsell, D.S., Musah, R.A., Morris, G.M., Goodin, D.B., and Olson, A.J. (2003) Automated docking of ligands to an artificial active site: augmenting crystallographic analysis with computer modeling. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 17(8): 525–536.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    66. Ruvinsky, A.M. and Kozintsev, A.V. (2005) New and fast statistical-thermodynamic method for computation of protein-ligand binding entropy substantially improves docking accuracy. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 26(11): 1089–1095.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    67. Ruvinsky, A.M. and Kozintsev, A.V. (2006) Novel statistical-thermodynamic methods to predict protein-ligand binding positions using probability distribution functions. Proteins-Structure Function and Bioinformatics, 62(1): 202–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    68. Cramer, C.J. and Truhlar, D.G. (1992) AM1-SM2 and PM3-SM3 parameterized SCF solvation models for free energies in aqueous solution. J Comput Aided Mol Des, 6(6): 629–666.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hawkins, G.D., Giesen, D.J., Lynch, G.C., Chambers, C.C., Rossi, I., Storer, J.W., Li, J., Zhu, T., Thompson, J.D., Winget, P., Lynch, B.J., Rinaldi, D., Liotard, D.A., Cramer, C.J., and Truhlar, D.G. (2007) AMSOL 7.1, Department of Chemistry and Supercomputer Institute, University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, Minnesota, http://comp.chem.umn.edu/amsol/.
  70. 70.
    70. Vaque, M., Arola, A., Aliagas, C., and Pujadas, G. (2006) BDT: an easy-to-use front-end application for automation of massive docking tasks and complex docking strategies with AutoDock. Bioinformatics, 22(14): 1803–1804.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    71. Smith, R.D., Hu, L., Falkner, J.A., Benson, M.L., Nerothin, J.P., and Carlson, H.A. (2006) Exploring protein-ligand recognition with Binding MOAD. J Mol Graph Model, 24(6): 414–425.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    72. Guex, N. and Peitsch, M.C. (1997) SWISS-MODEL and the Swiss-PdbViewer: an environment for comparative protein modeling. Electrophoresis, 18(15): 2714–2723.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    73. Davis, I.W., Murray, L.W., Richardson, J.S., and Richardson, D.C. (2004) MOLPROBITY: structure validation and all-atom contact analysis for nucleic acids and their complexes. Nucleic Acids Res, 32(Web Server issue): W615–619.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    74. Lovell, S.C., Davis, I.W., Arendall, W.B., 3rd, de Bakker, P.I., Word, J.M., Prisant, M.G., Richardson, J.S., and Richardson, D.C. (2003) Structure validation by Calpha geometry: phi,psi and Cbeta deviation. Proteins, 50(3): 437–450.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Weininger, D., Daylight Theory Manual. 2006, Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    76. Dalby, A., Nourse, J.G., Hounshell, W.D., Gushurst, A.K.I., Grier, D.L., Leland, B.A., and Laufer, J. (1992) Description of Several Chemical Structure File Formats Used by Computer Programs Developed at Molecular Design Limited. J Chem Inf Comput Sci, 32: 244–255.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Acton, A., Banck, M., Bréfort, J., Cruz, M., Curtis, D., Hassinen, T., Heikkilä, V., Hutchison, G., Huuskonen, J., Jensen, J., Liboska, R., and Rowley, C. (2006) Chemical 2.00, Department of Chemistry, University of Kuopio: Kuopio, Finland, http://www.uku.fi/~thassine/projects/ghemical/.
  78. 78.
    78. Hassinen, T. and Peräkylä, M. (2001) New energy terms for reduced protein models implemented in an off-lattice force field. J Comput Chem, 22(12): 1229–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hassinen, T., Hutchison, G., Cruz, M., Banck, M., Rowley, C., and Curtis, D. (2007) Ghemical-GMS 2.10, Department of Chemistry, University of Iowa.: Iowa City, IA, http://www.uiowa.edu/çghemical/ghemical.shtml.
  80. 80.
    van Aalten, D. and Oswald, S. (2007) PRODRG 2, University of Dundee: Dundee, Scotland, http://davapc1.bioch.dundee.ac.uk/programs/prodrg/.
  81. 81.
    81. van Aalten, D.M., Bywater, R., Findlay, J.B., Hendlich, M., Hooft, R.W., and Vriend, G. (1996) PRODRG, a program for generating molecular topologies and unique molecular descriptors from coordinates of small molecules. J Comput Aided Mol Des, 10(3): 255–262.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    82. Schuttelkopf, A.W. and van Aalten, D.M. (2004) PRODRG: a tool for high-throughput crystallography of protein-ligand complexes. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr, 60(Pt 8): 1355–1363.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Skillman, A.G. QUACPAC OpenEye Scientific Software: Santa Fe, NM, http://www. eyesopen.com/products/applications/quacpac.html.
  84. 84.
    84. Hetenyi, C. and van der Spoel, D. (2002) Efficient docking of peptides to proteins without prior knowledge of the binding site. Protein Sci, 11(7): 1729–1737.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    85. Raymer, M.L., Sanschagrin, P.C., Punch, W.F., Venkataraman, S., Goodman, E.D., and Kuhn, L.A. (1997) Predicting conserved water-mediated and polar ligand interactions in proteins using a K-nearest-neighbors genetic algorithm. J Mol Biol, 265(4): 445–464.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Garrett M. Morris
    • 1
  • Marguerita Lim-Wilby
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Molecular BiologyThe Scripps Research InstituteLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.BioSolveIT GmbHSankt AugustinGermany

Personalised recommendations