MDM2 Case Study: Computational Protocol Utilizing Protein Flexibility Improves Ligand Binding Mode Predictions

Recovery of the P53 tumor suppressor pathway via small molecule inhibitors of oncoprotein MDM2 highlights the critical role of computational methodologies in targeted cancer therapies. Molecular docking programs in particular, have become essential during computer-aided drug design by providing a quantitative ranking of predicted binding geometries of small ligands to proteins based on binding free energy. In this study, we found improved ligand binding mode predictions of small medicinal compounds to MDM2 based on RMSD values using AutoDock and AutoDock Vina employing protein binding site flexibility. Additional analysis suggests a data mining protocol using linear regression can isolate the particular flexible bonds necessary for future optimum docking results. The implementation of a flexible receptor protocol based on ‘a priori’ knowledge obtained from data mining will improve accuracy and reduce costs of high throughput virtual screenings of potential cancer drugs targeting MDM2.

[1]  P. Bradley,et al.  High-resolution structure prediction and the crystallographic phase problem , 2007, Nature.

[2]  Christos Deligkaris,et al.  Validation of a computational docking methodology to identify the non-covalent binding site of ligands to DNA. , 2014, Molecular bioSystems.

[3]  Stefano Forli,et al.  Virtual screening with AutoDock: theory and practice , 2010, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

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

[5]  Bryan L. Roth,et al.  Finding New Tricks For Old Drugs: An Efficient Route For Public-Sector Drug Discovery , 2005, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[6]  J. Gready,et al.  Combining docking and molecular dynamic simulations in drug design , 2006, Medicinal research reviews.

[7]  Edward W. Lowe,et al.  Computational Methods in Drug Discovery , 2014, Pharmacological Reviews.

[8]  A. Fersht,et al.  The tumor suppressor p53: from structures to drug discovery. , 2010, Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology.

[9]  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..

[10]  K. Srivenugopal,et al.  The MDM2-p53 pathway revisited , 2013, Journal of biomedical research.

[11]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  Small Molecule Inhibitors of MDM2-p53 and MDMX-p53 Interactions as New Cancer Therapeutics , 2013 .

[12]  M. Gottesman.  Mechanisms of cancer drug resistance. , 2002, Annual review of medicine.

[13]  Hui Wang,et al.  Antisense anti-MDM2 oligonucleotides as a novel therapeutic approach to human breast cancer: in vitro and in vivo activities and mechanisms. , 2001, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

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

[15]  Jonathan B. Chaires,et al.  Molecular Docking of Intercalators and Groove-Binders to Nucleic Acids Using Autodock and Surflex , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[16]  José L. Medina-Franco,et al.  Visualization of the Chemical Space in Drug Discovery , 2008 .

[17]  Isabel C F R Ferreira,et al.  Selective Flexibility of Side‐Chain Residues Improves VEGFR‐2 Docking Score using AutoDock Vina , 2012, Chemical biology & drug design.

[18]  U. Dwivedi,et al.  DNA topoisomerase‐directed anticancerous alkaloids: ADMET‐based screening, molecular docking, and dynamics simulation , 2016, Biotechnology and applied biochemistry.

[19]  Michael K. Gilson,et al.  BindingDB in 2015: A public database for medicinal chemistry, computational chemistry and systems pharmacology , 2015, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[21]  J. Momand,et al.  Identification of FDA‐approved Drugs that Computationally Bind to MDM2 , 2012, Chemical biology & drug design.

[22]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  A semiempirical free energy force field with charge‐based desolvation , 2007, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[24]  George M Whitesides,et al.  Designing ligands to bind proteins , 2005, Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics.

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

[26]  L. Vassilev,et al.  Targeting the p53–MDM2 interaction to treat cancer , 2004, British Journal of Cancer.

[27]  Hui Wang,et al.  MDM2 oncogene as a novel target for human cancer therapy. , 2000, Current pharmaceutical design.

[28]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  Targeting the MDM2-p53 Protein-Protein Interaction for New Cancer Therapeutics , 2012 .

[29]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Docking and Scoring Functions/Virtual Screening , 2003 .

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

[31]  Tina Ritschel,et al.  Current progress in Structure-Based Rational Drug Design marks a new mindset in drug discovery , 2018 .

[32]  R. Solé,et al.  Data completeness—the Achilles heel of drug-target networks , 2008, Nature Biotechnology.

[33]  Xicheng Wang,et al.  An effective docking strategy for virtual screening based on multi-objective optimization algorithm , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[34]  Kareem Khoury,et al.  P53 mdm2 inhibitors. , 2012, Current pharmaceutical design.

[35]  Lei Xie,et al.  Structure-based systems biology for analyzing off-target binding. , 2011, Current opinion in structural biology.

[36]  J. Dearden,et al.  QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to? , 2014, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[37]  Hui Wang,et al.  Identification of a new class of natural product MDM2 inhibitor: In vitro and in vivo anti-breast cancer activities and target validation , 2014, Oncotarget.

[38]  G. Wahl,et al.  MDM2, MDMX and p53 in oncogenesis and cancer therapy , 2013, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[39]  M. Markowicz,et al.  Adaptation of High-Throughput Screening in Drug Discovery—Toxicological Screening Tests , 2011, International journal of molecular sciences.

[40]  C. Prives,et al.  Blinded by the Light: The Growing Complexity of p53 , 2009, Cell.

[41]  L. Levin,et al.  Biodiversity on the Rocks: Macrofauna Inhabiting Authigenic Carbonate at Costa Rica Methane Seeps , 2015, PloS one.

[42]  F. J. Luque,et al.  Protein flexibility and ligand recognition: challenges for molecular modeling. , 2011, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[43]  C. Cordon-Cardo,et al.  MDM2 and prognosis. , 2004, Molecular cancer research : MCR.

[44]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  Efficient molecular docking of NMR structures: Application to HIV‐1 protease , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[45]  L. Kavraki,et al.  DINC: A new AutoDock-based protocol for docking large ligands , 2013, BMC Structural Biology.

[46]  Jean-Pierre A. Kocher,et al.  Multilevel Parallelization of AutoDock 4.2 , 2011, J. Cheminformatics.

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

[48]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Access the most recent version at doi: 10.1110/ps.21302 References , 2001 .

[49]  Bert Vogelstein,et al.  Oncoprotein MDM2 conceals the activation domain of tumour suppressor p53 , 1993, Nature.

[50]  Stewart A. Adcock,et al.  Molecular dynamics: survey of methods for simulating the activity of proteins. , 2006, Chemical reviews.

[51]  Sharangdhar S. Phatak,et al.  From laptop to benchtop to bedside: structure-based drug design on protein targets. , 2012, Current pharmaceutical design.

[52]  Sven Becker,et al.  Thoughts on the current assessment of Polo-like kinase inhibitor drug discovery , 2015, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[53]  Kazuki Saito,et al.  Mutations in topoisomerase I as a self-resistance mechanism coevolved with the production of the anticancer alkaloid camptothecin in plants , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[54]  Endar Marraskuranto,et al.  In silico study of fucoxanthin as a tumor cytotoxic agent , 2012, Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences.

[55]  Ridwan Sakidja,et al.  MDM2 case study: computational protocol utilising protein flexibility and data mining improves ligand binding mode predictions , 2017, Int. J. Comput. Biol. Drug Des..

[56]  M. Mezei,et al.  Molecular docking: a powerful approach for structure-based drug discovery. , 2011, Current computer-aided drug design.

[57]  B. Roux,et al.  Absolute binding free energy calculations using molecular dynamics simulations with restraining potentials. , 2006, Biophysical journal.

[58]  Zsolt Bikádi,et al.  Application of the PM6 semi-empirical method to modeling proteins enhances docking accuracy of AutoDock , 2009, J. Cheminformatics.

[59]  Hisashi Yamada,et al.  Three missense mutations of DNA topoisomerase I in highly camptothecin-resistant colon cancer cell sublines , 2013, Oncology reports.

[60]  J. Niland,et al.  The MDM2 gene amplification database. , 1998, Nucleic acids research.

[61]  A. Levine,et al.  The p53-mdm-2 autoregulatory feedback loop. , 1993, Genes & development.

[62]  Helio J. C. Barbosa,et al.  A genetic algorithm for the ligand-protein docking problem , 2004 .

[63]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  Challenges, Applications, and Recent Advances of Protein-Ligand Docking in Structure-Based Drug Design , 2014, Molecules.

[64]  Thierry Langer,et al.  Recent Advances in Docking and Scoring , 2005 .

[65]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  Advances and Challenges in Protein-Ligand Docking , 2010, International journal of molecular sciences.

[66]  Jeremy C. Smith,et al.  VinaMPI: Facilitating multiple receptor high‐throughput virtual docking on high‐performance computers , 2013, J. Comput. Chem..

[67]  L. Kavraki,et al.  Understanding the challenges of protein flexibility in drug design , 2015, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[68]  Christian Ottmann,et al.  Protein-Protein Interactions. , 2017, Drug discovery today. Technologies.

[69]  D. F. Waugh,et al.  Protein-protein interactions. , 1954, Advances in protein chemistry.

[70]  Anang A. Shelat,et al.  Ligand Binding Mode Prediction by Docking: Mdm2/Mdmx Inhibitors as a Case Study , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[71]  Christoph A Sotriffer,et al.  Accounting for induced-fit effects in docking: what is possible and what is not? , 2011, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[72]  Dong Yu,et al.  Experimental therapy of human prostate cancer by inhibiting MDM2 expression with novel mixed‐backbone antisense oligonucleotides: In vitro and in vivo activities and mechanisms , 2003, The Prostate.

[73]  Leonardo L. G. Ferreira,et al.  Molecular Docking and Structure-Based Drug Design Strategies , 2015, Molecules.

[74]  S. Rajkumar,et al.  The high cost of cancer drugs and what we can do about it. , 2012, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[75]  L. Ellis,et al.  Resistance to Targeted Therapies: Refining Anticancer Therapy in the Era of Molecular Oncology , 2009, Clinical Cancer Research.

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

[77]  Ziwei Huang,et al.  Drug Discovery Research: New Frontiers in the Post-Genomic Era , 2007 .

[78]  Laxmikant V. Kalé,et al.  Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[79]  Stewart A. Adcock,et al.  Molecular Dynamics: Survey of Methods for Simulating the Activity of Proteins , 2006 .

[80]  Lydia E. Kavraki,et al.  Molecular docking: a problem with thousands of degrees of freedom , 2001, Proceedings 2001 ICRA. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.01CH37164).

[81]  G. Forbes.  Molecular Dynamics , 1885, Nature.

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

[83]  Douglas R. Houston,et al.  Structure- and Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Identifies New Scaffolds for Inhibitors of the Oncoprotein MDM2 , 2015, PloS one.

[84]  L. Vassilev,et al.  In Vivo Activation of the p53 Pathway by Small-Molecule Antagonists of MDM2 , 2004, Science.

[85]  S. Pongor,et al.  Multiple weak hits confuse complex systems: a transcriptional regulatory network as an example. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[86]  A. Levine,et al.  The first 30 years of p53: growing ever more complex , 2009, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[87]  Jianjun Hu,et al.  Improving Protein Docking Using Sustainable Genetic Algorithms , 2011 .

[88]  F. Noé,et al.  Protein conformational plasticity and complex ligand-binding kinetics explored by atomistic simulations and Markov models , 2015, Nature Communications.

[89]  A. Levine,et al.  Structure of the MDM2 Oncoprotein Bound to the p53 Tumor Suppressor Transactivation Domain , 1996, Science.

[90]  Conrad C. Huang,et al.  UCSF Chimera—A visualization system for exploratory research and analysis , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[91]  U. Moll,et al.  The MDM2-p53 interaction. , 2003, Molecular cancer research : MCR.

[92]  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.

[93]  A. Buléon,et al.  A systematic docking approach. Application to the α-cyclodextrin/phenyl-ethanol complex , 1992 .