Reranking Docking Poses Using Molecular Simulations and Approximate Free Energy Methods

Fast and accurate identification of active compounds is essential for effective use of virtual screening workflows. Here, we have compared the ligand-ranking efficiency of the linear interaction energy (LIE) method against standard docking approaches. Using a trypsin set of 1549 compounds, we performed 12,250 molecular dynamics simulations. The LIE method proved effective but did not yield results significantly better than those obtained with docking codes. The entire database of simulations is released.

[1]  Scott Boyer,et al.  CHEMOINFORMATICS AND BEYOND , 2013 .

[2]  M J Harvey,et al.  ACEMD: Accelerating Biomolecular Dynamics in the Microsecond Time Scale. , 2009, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[3]  Johan Åqvist,et al.  Binding affinity prediction with different force fields: Examination of the linear interaction energy method , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[4]  Xavier Morelli,et al.  GFscore: A General Nonlinear Consensus Scoring Function for High-Throughput Docking , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[5]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  The Amber biomolecular simulation programs , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[6]  J. Åqvist,et al.  The linear interaction energy method for predicting ligand binding free energies. , 2001, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

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

[8]  R. Glen,et al.  Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[9]  Jens Carlsson,et al.  Improving the Accuracy of the Linear Interaction Energy Method for Solvation Free Energies. , 2007, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

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

[11]  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..

[12]  Emilio Gallicchio,et al.  Linear Interaction Energy (LIE) Models for Ligand Binding in Implicit Solvent:  Theory and Application to the Binding of NNRTIs to HIV-1 Reverse Transcriptase. , 2007, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[13]  G. de Fabritiis,et al.  Complete reconstruction of an enzyme-inhibitor binding process by molecular dynamics simulations , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Cheng Luo,et al.  Computational drug discovery , 2012, Acta Pharmacologica Sinica.

[15]  X. Zou,et al.  Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: Considering protein structural variations in molecular docking , 2006, Proteins.

[16]  Malcolm J. McGregor,et al.  Virtual Screening in Drug Discovery , 2006 .

[17]  P. Kollman,et al.  Automatic atom type and bond type perception in molecular mechanical calculations. , 2006, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[18]  Christian Kramer,et al.  MM/GBSA Binding Energy Prediction on the PDBbind Data Set: Successes, Failures, and Directions for Further Improvement , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[19]  P A Kollman,et al.  Ranking ligand binding affinities with avidin: a molecular dynamics‐based interaction energy study , 1999, Proteins.

[20]  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.

[21]  Johan Åqvist,et al.  Ligand binding affinity prediction by linear interaction energy methods , 1998, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[23]  Hugo Gutiérrez-de-Terán,et al.  Linear interaction energy: method and applications in drug design. , 2012, Methods in molecular biology.

[24]  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.

[25]  Toni Giorgino,et al.  Distributed computing as a virtual supercomputer: Tools to run and manage large-scale BOINC simulations , 2010, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[26]  P A Kollman,et al.  What determines the van der Waals coefficient β in the LIE (linear interaction energy) method to estimate binding free energies using molecular dynamics simulations? , 1999, Proteins.

[27]  Eric T. Kim,et al.  How does a drug molecule find its target binding site? , 2011, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

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

[29]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  MMPBSA.py: An Efficient Program for End-State Free Energy Calculations. , 2012, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

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

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