{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03913738019169329, 'fraction_numerical': 0.023961661341853034, 'mean_word_length': 5.11219512195122, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Directly Binding Rather than Induced-Fit Dominated Binding Affinity Difference in (S)- and (R)-Crizotinib Bound MTH1.

As one of the most successful anticancer drugs, crizotinib is found to be efficient in the suppression of MTH1, a new therapeutic target for RAS-dependent cancers. Deep analysis shows that stereospecificity is prevalent in the binding of crizotinib to MTH1, where the target is more preferred to bind with the (S)-enantiomer of crizotinib. Surprisingly, very similar binding modes were found for the two enantiomers (Huber et al. Nature 2014, 508, 222-227), which puzzled us to ask a question as to why such a subtle structural variation could lead to so large of a binding affinity difference. Thereafter, by using advanced all-atom molecular dynamics simulations, we characterized the free energy surfaces of the binding/unbinding processes of the (S) and (R)-crizotinib enantiomers to/from MTH1. Interestingly, we found that rather than the induced-fit process, which is prevalent in drug selectivity and specificity (Wilson et al. Science 2015, 347, 882-886), the directly binding process has dominated impact on the binding affinity difference of the enantiomers, implying a common mechanism of stereoselectivity of enantiomers.