Integrating Ligand-Based and Protein-Centric Virtual Screening of Kinase Inhibitors Using Ensembles of Multiple Protein Kinase Genes and Conformations

The rapidly growing wealth of structural and functional information about kinase genes and kinase inhibitors that is fueled by a significant therapeutic role of this protein family provides a significant impetus for development of targeted computational screening approaches. In this work, we explore an ensemble-based, protein-centric approach that allows for simultaneous virtual ligand screening against multiple kinase genes and multiple kinase receptor conformations. We systematically analyze and compare the results of ligand-based and protein-centric screening approaches using both single-receptor and ensemble-based docking protocols. A panel of protein kinase targets that includes ABL, EGFR, P38, CDK2, TK, and VEGFR2 kinases is used in this comparative analysis. By applying various performance metrics we have shown that ligand-centric shape matching can provide an effective enrichment of active compounds outperforming single-receptor docking screening. However, ligand-based approaches can be highly sensitive to the choice of inhibitor queries. Employment of multiple inhibitor queries combined with parallel selection ranking criteria can improve the performance and efficiency of ligand-based virtual screening. We also demonstrated that replica-exchange Monte Carlo docking with kinome-based ensembles of multiple crystal structures can provide a superior early enrichment on the kinase targets. The central finding of this study is that incorporation of the template-based structural information about kinase inhibitors and protein kinase structures in diverse functional states can significantly enhance the overall performance and robustness of both ligand and protein-centric screening strategies. The results of this study may be useful in virtual screening of kinase inhibitors potentially offering a beneficial spectrum of therapeutic activities across multiple disease states.

[1]  M Rarey,et al.  Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[2]  Shuichi Hirono,et al.  Comparison of Consensus Scoring Strategies for Evaluating Computational Models of Protein-Ligand Complexes , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[3]  David G. Lloyd,et al.  Considerations in Compound Database Preparation-"Hidden" Impact on Virtual Screening Results , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[4]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Systematic Exploitation of Multiple Receptor Conformations for Virtual Ligand Screening , 2011, PloS one.

[5]  Gennady Verkhivker,et al.  Deciphering common failures in molecular docking of ligand-protein complexes , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[6]  Christopher R. Corbeil,et al.  Docking Ligands into Flexible and Solvated Macromolecules, 1. Development and Validation of FITTED 1.0 , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[7]  Orr Ravitz,et al.  Improving molecular docking through eHiTS’ tunable scoring function , 2011, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[8]  Maria Kontoyianni,et al.  Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[9]  James L. Melville,et al.  Better than Random? The Chemotype Enrichment Problem , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[10]  P. Hawkins,et al.  Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[11]  Michael Nilges,et al.  Comparative Evaluation of 3D Virtual Ligand Screening Methods: Impact of the Molecular Alignment on Enrichment , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[12]  Benjamin A. Ellingson,et al.  Conformer Generation with OMEGA: Algorithm and Validation Using High Quality Structures from the Protein Databank and Cambridge Structural Database , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[13]  Gennady M Verkhivker.  In silico profiling of tyrosine kinases binding specificity and drug resistance using Monte Carlo simulations with the ensembles of protein kinase crystal structures. , 2007, Biopolymers.

[14]  Violeta I. Pérez-Nueno,et al.  Improving VEGFR-2 Docking-Based Screening by Pharmacophore Postfiltering and Similarity Search Postprocessing , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[15]  Thomas Sander,et al.  Comparison of Ligand- and Structure-Based Virtual Screening on the DUD Data Set , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[16]  G. Klebe.  Virtual ligand screening: strategies, perspectives and limitations , 2006, Drug Discovery Today.

[17]  Oliver Korb,et al.  Pose prediction and virtual screening performance of GOLD scoring functions in a standardized test , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[18]  Todd J. A. Ewing,et al.  DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[19]  Nikolay V. Dokholyan,et al.  Combined Application of Cheminformatics- and Physical Force Field-Based Scoring Functions Improves Binding Affinity Prediction for CSAR Data Sets , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[20]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy , 2004, Proteins.

[21]  D. Rognan,et al.  Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[22]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  Scoring and Lessons Learned with the CSAR Benchmark Using an Improved Iterative Knowledge-Based Scoring Function , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[23]  Gennady M Verkhivker.  Computational proteomics of biomolecular interactions in the sequence and structure space of the tyrosine kinome: Deciphering the molecular basis of the kinase inhibitors selectivity , 2006, Proteins.

[24]  Chris Oostenbrink,et al.  Are Automated Molecular Dynamics Simulations and Binding Free Energy Calculations Realistic Tools in Lead Optimization? An Evaluation of the Linear Interaction Energy (LIE) Method , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[25]  Ajay N. Jain.  Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[26]  Fredrik Svensson,et al.  Virtual Screening Data Fusion Using Both Structure- and Ligand-Based Methods , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[27]  Qi Liu,et al.  Virtual Drug Screen Schema Based on Multiview Similarity Integration and Ranking Aggregation , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[28]  Andreas Bender,et al.  Recognizing Pitfalls in Virtual Screening: A Critical Review , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[29]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Comparison of Topological, Shape, and Docking Methods in Virtual Screening , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[30]  Jing Li,et al.  Knowledge-Based Scoring Functions in Drug Design: 3. A Two-Dimensional Knowledge-Based Hydrogen-Bonding Potential for the Prediction of Protein-Ligand Interactions , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[31]  Gennady M Verkhivker,et al.  Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. , 1995, Chemistry & biology.

[32]  Luhua Lai,et al.  Binding Energy Landscape Analysis Helps to Discriminate True Hits from High-Scoring Decoys in Virtual Screening , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[33]  N. Foloppe,et al.  Towards predictive ligand design with free-energy based computational methods? , 2006, Current medicinal chemistry.

[34]  Hualiang Jiang,et al.  Knowledge-Based Scoring Functions in Drug Design. 1. Developing a Target-Specific Method for Kinase-Ligand Interactions , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[35]  Dennis M. Krüger,et al.  Comparison of Structure‐ and Ligand‐Based Virtual Screening Protocols Considering Hit List Complementarity and Enrichment Factors , 2010, ChemMedChem.

[36]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  An Extensive Test of 14 Scoring Functions Using the PDBbind Refined Set of 800 Protein-Ligand Complexes , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[37]  J. Andrew Grant,et al.  Molecular shape and electrostatics in the encoding of relevant chemical information , 2005, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[38]  Jonas Boström,et al.  Assessing the performance of OMEGA with respect to retrieving bioactive conformations. , 2003, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[39]  M. Murcko,et al.  Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[40]  Gennady M Verkhivker,et al.  Energy landscape theory, funnels, specificity, and optimal criterion of biomolecular binding. , 2003, Physical review letters.

[41]  J Andrew McCammon,et al.  On the use of molecular dynamics receptor conformations for virtual screening. , 2012, Methods in molecular biology.

[42]  Richard A. Friesner,et al.  Comparative Performance of Several Flexible Docking Programs and Scoring Functions: Enrichment Studies for a Diverse Set of Pharmaceutically Relevant Targets , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[43]  David W. Ritchie,et al.  Using Consensus-Shape Clustering To Identify Promiscuous Ligands and Protein Targets and To Choose the Right Query for Shape-Based Virtual Screening , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[44]  James Andrew McCammon,et al.  Predictive Power of Molecular Dynamics Receptor Structures in Virtual Screening , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[45]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Recipes for the Selection of Experimental Protein Conformations for Virtual Screening , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[46]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Surflex-Dock: Docking benchmarks and real-world application , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[47]  Miklos Feher,et al.  The Use of Consensus Scoring in Ligand-Based Virtual Screening , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[48]  J. A. Grant,et al.  A shape-based 3-D scaffold hopping method and its application to a bacterial protein-protein interaction. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[49]  Yvonne C. Martin,et al.  Application of Belief Theory to Similarity Data Fusion for Use in Analog Searching and Lead Hopping , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[50]  D. E. Clark,et al.  Flexible docking using tabu search and an empirical estimate of binding affinity , 1998, Proteins.

[51]  Zhihai Liu,et al.  Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on a Diverse Test Set , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[52]  Dariusz Plewczynski,et al.  Can we trust docking results? Evaluation of seven commonly used programs on PDBbind database , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[53]  Yanli Wang,et al.  Structure-Based Virtual Screening for Drug Discovery: a Problem-Centric Review , 2012, The AAPS Journal.

[54]  Wei Deng,et al.  Evaluation of Different Virtual Screening Programs for Docking in a Charged Binding Pocket , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[55]  Bohdan Waszkowycz,et al.  Towards improving compound selection in structure-based virtual screening. , 2008, Drug discovery today.

[56]  I. Muegge.  PMF scoring revisited. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[57]  G. V. Paolini,et al.  Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes , 1997, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[58]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[59]  Naomie Salim,et al.  Combination of Fingerprint-Based Similarity Coefficients Using Data Fusion , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[60]  Matthew P. Repasky,et al.  Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[61]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Docking and scoring with ICM: the benchmarking results and strategies for improvement , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[62]  Andrej Sali,et al.  Virtual ligand screening against comparative protein structure models. , 2012, Methods in molecular biology.

[63]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative. , 2008, Current opinion in structural biology.

[64]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Ligand docking and structure-based virtual screening in drug discovery. , 2007, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[65]  J. Pin,et al.  Virtual screening workflow development guided by the "receiver operating characteristic" curve approach. Application to high-throughput docking on metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 4. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[66]  Guixia Liu,et al.  Performance Evaluation of 2D Fingerprint and 3D Shape Similarity Methods in Virtual Screening , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[67]  Y. Martin,et al.  A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[68]  R. Kroemer.  Structure-based drug design: docking and scoring. , 2007, Current protein & peptide science.

[69]  J. A. Grant,et al.  Gaussian docking functions. , 2003, Biopolymers.

[70]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  ICM—A new method for protein modeling and design: Applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation , 1994, J. Comput. Chem..

[71]  Gennady M Verkhivker,et al.  Towards understanding the mechanisms of molecular recognition by computer simulations of ligand–protein interactions , 1999, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[72]  Yongbo Hu,et al.  Comparison of Several Molecular Docking Programs: Pose Prediction and Virtual Screening Accuracy , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[73]  Jing Li,et al.  Knowledge-Based Scoring Functions in Drug Design: 2. Can the Knowledge Base Be Enriched? , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[74]  J. A. Grant,et al.  A fast method of molecular shape comparison: A simple application of a Gaussian description of molecular shape , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

[75]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[76]  Richard A. Friesner,et al.  Docking performance of the glide program as evaluated on the Astex and DUD datasets: a complete set of glide SP results and selected results for a new scoring function integrating WaterMap and glide , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[77]  P. Charifson,et al.  Conformational analysis of drug-like molecules bound to proteins: an extensive study of ligand reorganization upon binding. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[78]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Improved docking, screening and selectivity prediction for small molecule nuclear receptor modulators using conformational ensembles , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[79]  Simona Distinto,et al.  How To Optimize Shape-Based Virtual Screening: Choosing the Right Query and Including Chemical Information , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[80]  P Willett,et al.  Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[81]  Reiji Teramoto,et al.  Supervised Consensus Scoring for Docking and Virtual Screening , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[82]  W. L. Jorgensen.  The Many Roles of Computation in Drug Discovery , 2004, Science.

[83]  Brian K. Shoichet,et al.  Virtual screening of chemical libraries , 2004, Nature.

[84]  C. Venkatachalam,et al.  LigandFit: a novel method for the shape-directed rapid docking of ligands to protein active sites. , 2003, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[85]  W Patrick Walters,et al.  A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance , 2004, Proteins.

[86]  Chang-Guo Zhan,et al.  Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Approach Using a New Scoring Function , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[87]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  MCDOCK: A Monte Carlo simulation approach to the molecular docking problem , 1999, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[88]  Xiliang Zheng,et al.  Quantifying intrinsic specificity: a potential complement to affinity in drug screening. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[89]  G. Klebe,et al.  DrugScore(CSD)-knowledge-based scoring function derived from small molecule crystal data with superior recognition rate of near-native ligand poses and better affinity prediction. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[90]  Hanna Geppert,et al.  Integrating Structure‐ and Ligand‐Based Virtual Screening: Comparison of Individual, Parallel, and Fused Molecular Docking and Similarity Search Calculations on Multiple Targets , 2008, ChemMedChem.

[91]  J. Irwin,et al.  Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[92]  Sudipto Mukherjee,et al.  Evaluation of DOCK 6 as a pose generation and database enrichment tool , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[93]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function , 1998 .

[94]  Richard D. Smith,et al.  CSAR Benchmark Exercise of 2010: Combined Evaluation Across All Submitted Scoring Functions , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[95]  Jin Li,et al.  On Evaluating Molecular-Docking Methods for Pose Prediction and Enrichment Factors , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[96]  Christopher I. Bayly,et al.  Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the "Early Recognition" Problem , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[97]  Thierry Langer,et al.  Fast and Efficient in Silico 3D Screening: Toward Maximum Computational Efficiency of Pharmacophore-Based and Shape-Based Approaches , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[98]  Simona Distinto,et al.  Evaluation of the performance of 3D virtual screening protocols: RMSD comparisons, enrichment assessments, and decoy selection—What can we learn from earlier mistakes? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[99]  Gregory L. Wilson,et al.  Integrating structure-based and ligand-based approaches for computational drug design. , 2011, Future medicinal chemistry.

[100]  Hui Sun Lee,et al.  Improving Virtual Screening Performance against Conformational Variations of Receptors by Shape Matching with Ligand Binding Pocket , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[101]  Charles L. Brooks,et al.  Detailed analysis of grid‐based molecular docking: A case study of CDOCKER—A CHARMm‐based MD docking algorithm , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..

[102]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  How Does Consensus Scoring Work for Virtual Library Screening? An Idealized Computer Experiment , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[103]  Jiwon Choi,et al.  Optimization of High Throughput Virtual Screening by Combining Shape-Matching and Docking Methods , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[104]  Luhua Lai,et al.  Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[105]  B. Kuhn,et al.  Validation and use of the MM-PBSA approach for drug discovery. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[106]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking , 2003, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[107]  C. E. Peishoff,et al.  A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[108]  Matthew P. Repasky,et al.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[109]  Christine Humblet,et al.  Computation of 3D queries for ROCS based virtual screens , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[110]  Richard D. Smith,et al.  CSAR Benchmark Exercise of 2010: Selection of the Protein–Ligand Complexes , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[111]  Natasja Brooijmans,et al.  Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. , 2003, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[112]  Mark McGann,et al.  FRED and HYBRID docking performance on standardized datasets , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[113]  Reiji Teramoto,et al.  Consensus Scoring with Feature Selection for Structure-Based Virtual Screening , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[114]  Kenji Onodera,et al.  Evaluations of Molecular Docking Programs for Virtual Screening , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[115]  John W. Raymond,et al.  Conditional Probability: A New Fusion Method for Merging Disparate Virtual Screening Results , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[116]  Renxiao Wang,et al.  Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[117]  Nikolay V. Dokholyan,et al.  Cheminformatics Meets Molecular Mechanics: A Combined Application of Knowledge-Based Pose Scoring and Physical Force Field-Based Hit Scoring Functions Improves the Accuracy of Structure-Based Virtual Screening , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[118]  Nagamani Sukumar,et al.  Current trends in virtual high throughput screening using ligand-based and structure-based methods. , 2011, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[119]  Lazaros Mavridis,et al.  Comprehensive Comparison of Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Tools Against the DUD Data set Reveals Limitations of Current 3D Methods , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[120]  Jung-Hsin Lin.  Accommodating protein flexibility for structure-based drug design. , 2011, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[121]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[122]  Steven W. Muchmore,et al.  Rapid Estimation of Relative Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities Using a High-Throughput Version of MM-PBSA , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[123]  E. Jaeger,et al.  Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. , 2005, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.