Exponential consensus ranking improves the outcome in docking and receptor ensemble docking

Consensus-scoring methods are commonly used with molecular docking in virtual screening campaigns to filter potential ligands for a protein target. Traditional consensus methods combine results from different docking programs by averaging the score or rank of each molecule obtained from individual programs. Unfortunately, these methods fail if one of the docking programs has poor performance, which is likely to occur due to training-set dependencies and scoring-function parameterization. In this work, we introduce a novel consensus method that overcomes these limitations. We combine the results from individual docking programs using a sum of exponential distributions as a function of the molecule rank for each program. We test the method over several benchmark systems using individual and ensembles of target structures from diverse protein families with challenging decoy/ligand datasets. The results demonstrate that the novel method outperforms the best traditional consensus strategies over a wide range of systems. Moreover, because the novel method is based on the rank rather than the score, it is independent of the score units, scales and offsets, which can hinder the combination of results from different structures or programs. Our method is simple and robust, providing a theoretical basis not only for molecular docking but also for any consensus strategy in general.

[1]  Huikun Zhang,et al.  Machine Learning Consensus Scoring Improves Performance Across Targets in Structure-Based Virtual Screening , 2017, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[2]  Marcin J. Skwark,et al.  Improved Contact Predictions Using the Recognition of Protein Like Contact Patterns , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[3]  Florence Demenais,et al.  Association of Forced Vital Capacity with the Developmental Gene NCOR2 , 2016, PloS one.

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

[5]  A. Almeida,et al.  Enhanced resistive switching characteristics in Pt/BaTiO3/ITO structures through insertion of HfO2:Al2O3 (HAO) dielectric thin layer , 2017, Scientific Reports.

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

[7]  Salvatore Guccione,et al.  In silico screening for human norovirus antivirals reveals a novel non-nucleoside inhibitor of the viral polymerase , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[8]  D. Fairlie,et al.  Comparing sixteen scoring functions for predicting biological activities of ligands for protein targets. , 2015, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[9]  F. Javier Luque,et al.  Ligand-induced changes in the binding sites of proteins , 2002, Bioinform..

[10]  J Andrew McCammon,et al.  Target flexibility in molecular recognition. , 2005, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[11]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Multiple diverse ligands binding at a single protein site : A matter of pre-existing populations , 2001 .

[12]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Open challenges in structure-based virtual screening: Receptor modeling, target flexibility consideration and active site water molecules description. , 2015, Archives of biochemistry and biophysics.

[13]  Danzhi Huang,et al.  Hydrogen Bonding Penalty upon Ligand Binding , 2011, PloS one.

[14]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  Target flexibility: an emerging consideration in drug discovery and design. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[15]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Generation of Receptor Structural Ensembles for Virtual Screening Using Binding Site Shape Analysis and Clustering , 2012, Chemical biology & drug design.

[16]  Claudio N. Cavasotto and Narender Singh.  Docking and High Throughput Docking: Successes and the Challenge of Protein Flexibility , 2008 .

[17]  Sheng-You Huang,et al.  Exploring the potential of global protein-protein docking: an overview and critical assessment of current programs for automatic ab initio docking. , 2015, Drug discovery today.

[18]  Jessica Holien,et al.  Improvements, trends, and new ideas in molecular docking: 2012–2013 in review , 2015, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[19]  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..

[20]  S. Rasmussen,et al.  Structure of a nanobody-stabilized active state of the β2 adrenoceptor , 2010, Nature.

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

[22]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  The Challenge of Considering Receptor Flexibility in Ligand Docking and Virtual Screening , 2005 .

[23]  Matthieu Montes,et al.  NRLiSt BDB, the manually curated nuclear receptors ligands and structures benchmarking database. , 2014, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Automating drug discovery , 2017, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

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

[26]  Santosh A. Khedkar,et al.  Successful applications of computer aided drug discovery: moving drugs from concept to the clinic. , 2010, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[27]  Yu-chian Chen.  Beware of docking! , 2015, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[28]  António J. M. Ribeiro,et al.  Protein-ligand docking in the new millennium--a retrospective of 10 years in the field. , 2013, Current medicinal chemistry.

[29]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  High-throughput and in silico screenings in drug discovery , 2009, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[30]  Shu Liu,et al.  Application of Consensus Scoring and Principal Component Analysis for Virtual Screening against β-Secretase (BACE-1) , 2012, PloS one.

[31]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein-ligand docking: recent advances and future directions. , 2010, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[32]  Xavier Barril,et al.  rDock: A Fast, Versatile and Open Source Program for Docking Ligands to Proteins and Nucleic Acids , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[33]  Jan H. Jensen,et al.  PROPKA3: Consistent Treatment of Internal and Surface Residues in Empirical pKa Predictions. , 2011, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[34]  David Ryan Koes,et al.  Lessons Learned in Empirical Scoring with smina from the CSAR 2011 Benchmarking Exercise , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[36]  Vincent B. Chen,et al.  Correspondence e-mail: , 2000 .

[37]  Michael M. Mysinger,et al.  Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E): Better Ligands and Decoys for Better Benchmarking , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[39]  Noel M. O'Boyle,et al.  De novo design of molecular wires with optimal properties for solar energy conversion , 2011, J. Cheminformatics.

[40]  Jer-Wei Chang,et al.  A Novel Histone Deacetylase Inhibitor Exhibits Antitumor Activity via Apoptosis Induction, F-Actin Disruption and Gene Acetylation in Lung Cancer , 2010, PloS one.

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

[42]  N. Berry,et al.  Targeting SxIP-EB1 interaction: An integrated approach to the discovery of small molecule modulators of dynamic binding sites , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[43]  Cheng Zhang,et al.  Structure and Function of an Irreversible Agonist-β2 Adrenoceptor complex , 2010, Nature.

[44]  Chris Morley,et al.  Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox , 2011, J. Cheminformatics.

[45]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[46]  X. Barril,et al.  Unveiling the full potential of flexible receptor docking using multiple crystallographic structures. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[47]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Soft docking and multiple receptor conformations in virtual screening. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[48]  Ajay N. Jain.  Bias, reporting, and sharing: computational evaluations of docking methods , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[49]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Representing receptor flexibility in ligand docking through relevant normal modes. , 2005, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[50]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Chapter 8:Binding Free Energy Calculation and Scoring in Small-Molecule Docking , 2012 .

[51]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Assessing an Ensemble Docking-Based Virtual Screening Strategy for Kinase Targets by Considering Protein Flexibility , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[52]  N. Zhang,et al.  Enriching screening libraries with bioactive fragment space. , 2016, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[53]  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.

[54]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Conformational Sampling of Protein Flexibility in Generalized Coordinates: Application to Ligand Docking , 2005 .

[55]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules , 2005, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[56]  Jan H. Jensen,et al.  Improved Treatment of Ligands and Coupling Effects in Empirical Calculation and Rationalization of pKa Values. , 2011, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[57]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Ligand and Decoy Sets for Docking to G Protein-Coupled Receptors , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[58]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[59]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Exploring protein flexibility: incorporating structural ensembles from crystal structures and simulation into virtual screening protocols. , 2012, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[60]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Computational chemistry in drug lead discovery and design , 2018, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry.

[61]  Max W. Chang,et al.  Virtual Screening for HIV Protease Inhibitors: A Comparison of AutoDock 4 and Vina , 2010, PloS one.

[62]  William L Jorgensen,et al.  Efficient drug lead discovery and optimization. , 2009, Accounts of chemical research.

[63]  Didier Rognan,et al.  The impact of in silico screening in the discovery of novel and safer drug candidates. , 2017, Pharmacology & therapeutics.

[64]  Weiliang Zhu,et al.  Molecular docking for drug discovery and development: a widely used approach but far from perfect. , 2016, Future medicinal chemistry.

[65]  Dariusz Plewczynski,et al.  VoteDock: Consensus docking method for prediction of protein–ligand interactions , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[66]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  In silico drug discovery and design : theory, methods, challenges, and applications , 2015 .

[67]  Hwangseo Park,et al.  Consensus Scoring Approach To Identify the Inhibitors of AMP-Activated Protein Kinase α2 with Virtual Screening , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[68]  Bin Liu,et al.  Novel Consensus Docking Strategy to Improve Ligand Pose Prediction , 2018, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[69]  Tiziano Tuccinardi,et al.  Extensive Consensus Docking Evaluation for Ligand Pose Prediction and Virtual Screening Studies , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[70]  Heather A Carlson,et al.  Protein flexibility is an important component of structure-based drug discovery. , 2002, Current pharmaceutical design.

[71]  A. Kukol.  Consensus virtual screening approaches to predict protein ligands. , 2011, European journal of medicinal chemistry.

[72]  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.

[73]  Ching-Feng Weng,et al.  Prediction of N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Receptor GluN1-Ligand Binding Affinity by a Novel SVM-Pose/SVM-Score Combinatorial Ensemble Docking Scheme , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[74]  Abdulilah Ece,et al.  The discovery of potential cyclin A/CDK2 inhibitors: a combination of 3D QSAR pharmacophore modeling, virtual screening, and molecular docking studies , 2013, Medicinal Chemistry Research.

[75]  Arthur J. Olson,et al.  AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[76]  Rodrigo Quiroga,et al.  Vinardo: A Scoring Function Based on Autodock Vina Improves Scoring, Docking, and Virtual Screening , 2016, PloS one.