Knowledge-Based Strategy to Improve Ligand Pose Prediction Accuracy for Lead Optimization

Accurately predicting how a small molecule binds to its target protein is an essential requirement for structure-based drug design (SBDD) efforts. In structurally enabled medicinal chemistry programs, binding pose prediction is often applied to ligands after a related compound's crystal structure bound to the target protein has been solved. In this article, we present an automated pose prediction protocol that makes extensive use of existing X-ray ligand information. It uses spatial restraints during docking based on maximum common substructure (MCS) overlap between candidate molecule and existing X-ray coordinates of the related compound. For a validation data set of 8784 docking runs, our protocol's pose prediction accuracy (80-82%) is almost two times higher than that of one unbiased docking method software (43%). To demonstrate the utility of this protocol in a project setting, we show its application in a chronological manner for a number of internal drug discovery efforts. The accuracy and applicability of this algorithm (>70% of cases) to medicinal chemistry efforts make this the approach of choice for pose prediction in lead optimization programs.

[1]  Christopher W Murray,et al.  Experiences in fragment-based drug discovery. , 2012, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[2]  Richard J. Hall,et al.  Docking performance of fragments and druglike compounds. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[3]  Paul Labute,et al.  The generalized Born/volume integral implicit solvent model: Estimation of the free energy of hydration using London dispersion instead of atomic surface area , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[4]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  The RCSB Protein Data Bank: views of structural biology for basic and applied research and education , 2014, Nucleic Acids Res..

[5]  Tom L. Blundell,et al.  Keynote review: Structural biology and drug discovery , 2005 .

[6]  Michal Vieth,et al.  SDOCKER: a method utilizing existing X-ray structures to improve docking accuracy. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  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..

[8]  Paul Labute,et al.  Variability in docking success rates due to dataset preparation , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

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

[10]  Richard A. Lewis,et al.  Lessons in molecular recognition: the effects of ligand and protein flexibility on molecular docking accuracy. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[12]  Gerhard Barnickel,et al.  Selection of fragments for kinase inhibitor design: decoration is key. , 2014, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[13]  Anthony Nicholls,et al.  Conformer Generation with OMEGA: Learning from the Data Set and the Analysis of Failures , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[14]  W Patrick Walters,et al.  CORES: an automated method for generating three-dimensional models of protein/ligand complexes. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[15]  Michal Vieth,et al.  Structure-guided expansion of kinase fragment libraries driven by support vector machine models. , 2010, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[16]  Maurizio Botta,et al.  Protein Kinases: Docking and Homology Modeling Reliability , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[17]  T. Lybrand Ligand-protein docking and rational drug design. , 1995, Current Opinion in Structural Biology.

[18]  I. Kuntz,et al.  DOCK 6: combining techniques to model RNA-small molecule complexes. , 2009, RNA.

[19]  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.

[20]  Anthony Nicholls,et al.  Essential considerations for using protein-ligand structures in drug discovery. , 2012, Drug discovery today.

[21]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Recommendations for evaluation of computational methods , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[22]  Christopher W Murray,et al.  Fragment-based lead discovery using X-ray crystallography. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[23]  Michal Vieth,et al.  Lessons in Molecular Recognition, 2. Assessing and Improving Cross-Docking Accuracy , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[24]  B. Tidor,et al.  Rational Approaches to Improving Selectivity in Drug Design , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[25]  Jon A Erickson,et al.  Fragment-based design of kinase inhibitors: a practical guide. , 2015, Methods in molecular biology.

[26]  Ian A. Watson,et al.  Rules for identifying potentially reactive or promiscuous compounds. , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[27]  Kerim Babaoglu,et al.  Deconstructing fragment-based inhibitor discovery , 2006, Nature chemical biology.

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

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

[30]  Bernhard Rupp,et al.  Models of protein–ligand crystal structures: trust, but verify , 2015, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

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

[32]  Peter Willett,et al.  Similarity Searching in Databases of Flexible 3D Structures Using Smoothed Bounded Distance Matrices. , 2003 .

[33]  L. Dardenne,et al.  Receptor–ligand molecular docking , 2013, Biophysical Reviews.