Experimental versus predicted affinities for ligand binding to estrogen receptor: iterative selection and rescoring of docked poses systematically improves the correlation

The computational determination of binding modes for a ligand into a protein receptor is much more successful than the prediction of relative binding affinities (RBAs) for a set of ligands. Here we consider the binding of a set of 26 synthetic A-CD ligands into the estrogen receptor ERα. We show that the MOE default scoring function (London dG) used to rank the docked poses leads to a negligible correlation with experimental RBAs. However, switching to an energy-based scoring function, using a multiple linear regression to fit experimental RBAs, selecting top-ranked poses and then iteratively repeating this process leads to exponential convergence in 4–7 iterations and a very strong correlation. The method is robust, as shown by various validation tests. This approach may be of general use in improving the quality of predicted binding affinities.

[1]  Wei Deng,et al.  Predicting Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities Using Novel Geometrical Descriptors and Machine-Learning Methods , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[2]  Nicolas Moitessier,et al.  Docking Ligands into Flexible and Solvated Macromolecules. 4. Are Popular Scoring Functions Accurate for this Class of Proteins? , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[3]  Philip E. Bourne,et al.  A Machine Learning-Based Method To Improve Docking Scoring Functions and Its Application to Drug Repurposing , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[4]  J. Katzenellenbogen,et al.  Deconstructing estradiol: removal of B-ring generates compounds which are potent and subtype-selective estrogen receptor agonists. , 2009, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[5]  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.

[6]  Wei Deng,et al.  Predicting Protein‐Ligand Binding Affinities Using Novel Geometrical Descriptors and Machine‐Learning Methods. , 2004 .

[7]  Jeremy C. Smith,et al.  Can the calculation of ligand binding free energies be improved with continuum solvent electrostatics and an ideal‐gas entropy correction? , 2002, J. Comput. Chem..

[8]  Gary B. Fogel,et al.  Computational Intelligence Methods for Docking Scores , 2009 .

[9]  Ajay N. Jain.  Scoring noncovalent protein-ligand interactions: A continuous differentiable function tuned to compute binding affinities , 1996, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[10]  T. Hansson,et al.  Estimation of binding free energies for HIV proteinase inhibitors by molecular dynamics simulations. , 1995, Protein engineering.

[11]  A. Warshel,et al.  Calculations of antibody-antigen interactions: microscopic and semi-microscopic evaluation of the free energies of binding of phosphorylcholine analogs to McPC603. , 1992, Protein engineering.

[12]  Jacopo Tomasi,et al.  A new definition of cavities for the computation of solvation free energies by the polarizable continuum model , 1997 .

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

[14]  Christopher R. Corbeil,et al.  Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go , 2008, British journal of pharmacology.

[15]  Paul Labute,et al.  Training a Scoring Function for the Alignment of Small Molecules , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[16]  T. Hansson,et al.  On the Validity of Electrostatic Linear Response in Polar Solvents , 1996 .

[17]  T. Halgren.  Merck molecular force field. I. Basis, form, scope, parameterization, and performance of MMFF94 , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

[18]  John B. O. Mitchell,et al.  A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking , 2010, Bioinform..

[19]  Pietro Cozzini,et al.  Simple, intuitive calculations of free energy of binding for protein-ligand complexes. 2. Computational titration and pH effects in molecular models of neuraminidase-inhibitor complexes. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  Chris Oostenbrink,et al.  Improved ligand-protein binding affinity predictions using multiple binding modes. , 2010, Biophysical journal.

[21]  Jacob D. Durrant,et al.  NNScore 2.0: A Neural-Network Receptor–Ligand Scoring Function , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[22]  J. Katzenellenbogen,et al.  A-CD estrogens. I. Substituent effects, hormone potency, and receptor subtype selectivity in a new family of flexible estrogenic compounds. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[23]  P. Labute,et al.  Flexible alignment of small molecules. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  SHENG-YOU HUANG,et al.  An iterative knowledge‐based scoring function to predict protein–ligand interactions: I. Derivation of interaction potentials , 2006, J. Comput. Chem..

[25]  G. Klebe,et al.  Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[26]  Kenneth M Merz,et al.  Limits of Free Energy Computation for Protein-Ligand Interactions. , 2010, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[27]  Christopher R. Corbeil,et al.  Docking Ligands into Flexible and Solvated Macromolecules. 3. Impact of Input Ligand Conformation, Protein Flexibility, and Water Molecules on the Accuracy of Docking Programs , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[28]  Eric J. Martin,et al.  Surrogate AutoShim: Predocking into a Universal Ensemble Kinase Receptor for Three Dimensional Activity Prediction, Very Quickly, without a Crystal Structure , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[29]  Nicolas Moitessier,et al.  Docking Ligands into Flexible and Solvated Macromolecules. 5. Force-Field-Based Prediction of Binding Affinities of Ligands to Proteins , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[30]  P. Labute.  proteins STRUCTURE O FUNCTION O BIOINFORMATICS Protonate3D: Assignment of ionization , 2013 .

[31]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Scoring functions for protein-ligand docking. , 2006, Current protein & peptide science.

[32]  William J. Welsh,et al.  Identification of a Minimal Subset of Receptor Conformations for Improved Multiple Conformation Docking and Two-Step Scoring. , 2004 .

[33]  Jacob D. Durrant,et al.  NNScore: A Neural-Network-Based Scoring Function for the Characterization of Protein−Ligand Complexes , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[34]  D. C. Sullivan,et al.  AutoShim: Empirically Corrected Scoring Functions for Quantitative Docking with a Crystal Structure and IC50 Training Data. , 2008 .

[35]  J. Aqvist,et al.  A new method for predicting binding affinity in computer-aided drug design. , 1994, Protein engineering.

[36]  D. Frank Hsu,et al.  Consensus Scoring Criteria for Improving Enrichment in Virtual Screening , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[37]  A. N. Jain,et al.  Quantitative binding site model generation: compass applied to multiple chemotypes targeting the 5-HT1A receptor. , 1995, Journal of medicinal chemistry.