Back to Case Studies
Human Drug Design Molecular Docking BCR-ABL Imatinib AutoDock Vina

Imatinib Docking Against an AlphaFold ABL1 Model

A first-party account of compound retrieval, rule-based property screening, structure and pocket selection, rigid-receptor docking, and the exact reasons a favorable score cannot be treated as experimental confirmation.

CompoundCID 5291
Pockets found63
Docked poses10
Best Vina score−9.4
01 / Scientific question

Can an automated workflow reproduce a plausible Imatinib–ABL1 docking setup?

The session assembled a computational workflow around Imatinib and UniProt P00519. It is a workflow demonstration using an ABL1 AlphaFold prediction—not a fusion-specific BCR–ABL experimental complex.

Ligand
Imatinib, C29H31N7O, molecular weight 493.6
Structure
AlphaFold v6 model for ABL1, UniProt P00519
Selected site
fpocket #29, druggability 0.540, volume 1,064.8 ų
Docking
Vina 1.1.2, 25 Å cube, exhaustiveness 32
02 / Managed execution

From compound record to ranked docking poses

Retrieve and characterizeFetched PubChem CID 5291 and generated a 3D ligand representation.
Screen propertiesApplied rule-based drug-likeness and heuristic ADMET checks.
Select a pocketScanned the full-length AlphaFold ABL1 model and compared pocket 29 with known contact residues.
Dock and rankGenerated ten rigid-receptor poses and converted outputs for inspection.
03 / Results

The workflow produced a favorable score, with important structural qualifications

Score range

Ten poses ranged from −8.8 to −9.4 kcal/mol in the Vina scoring function.

Known-site overlap

The selected pocket overlapped 12 of 39 known contact residues cited in the report.

Rule-based profile

Four of five drug-likeness filters passed; the Ghose filter failed on molecular weight.

Property cautions

The report flags low solubility, moderate CYP/hERG risk, and QED 0.389.

Imatinib docking results and ranked AutoDock Vina poses against the selected ABL1 model pocket
Report figure: ranked Vina poses and selected pocket. Although the report graphic uses BCR–ABL language, the structure is the full-length P00519 ABL1 AlphaFold model, not a fusion-specific experimental complex.
04 / Interpretation boundary

A docking score is not a measured affinity or confirmation of potency

  • The AlphaFold model represents ABL1, not the BCR–ABL fusion or an experimental Imatinib-bound structure.
  • The predicted ground-state conformation does not capture the DFG-out state associated with Imatinib binding.
  • Rigid-receptor docking omits induced fit, explicit solvent, entropy, and cellular context.
  • Vina’s score is a ranking heuristic, not a validated binding free energy.
  • The ADMET values are rule-based estimates and require experimental or validated predictive follow-up.
Confidence boundary

Useful as a transparent workflow demonstration and pose-generation exercise; insufficient to confirm binding strength, selectivity, potency, or clinical behavior.

05 / Provenance

Reproducibility artifacts recorded in the session

imatinib_pubchem.csvCompound properties
imatinib_admet_summary.csvRule-based property screen
AF-P00519-F1.pdbAlphaFold ABL1 model
fpocket_results.csvPocket rankings
selected_pocket.jsonSelected-site metadata
poses_all.sdfDocked poses
Original session report15-page PDF with compound, structure, pocket, docking, and runtime details.
Download PDF

Run Your Own Analysis

Upload your data and describe your experiment. Pipette manages the analysis and preserves the evidence trail.

Get Started Free