A new peptide docking strategy using a mean field technique with mutually orthogonal Latin square sampling

The theoretical prediction of the association of a flexible ligand with a protein receptor requires efficient sampling of the conformational space of the ligand. Several docking methodologies are currently available. We propose a new docking technique that performs well at low computational cost. The method uses mutually orthogonal Latin squares to efficiently sample the docking space. A variant of the mean field technique is used to analyze this sample to arrive at the optimum. The method has been previously applied to explore the conformational space of peptides and identify structures with low values for the potential energy. Here we extend this method to simultaneously identify both the low energy conformation as well as a ‘high-scoring’ docking mode. Application of the method to 56 protein–peptide complexes, in which the length of the peptide ligand ranges from three to seven residues, and comparisons with Autodock 3.05, showed that the method works well.

[1]  John E. Ladbury,et al.  The role of water in sequence-independent ligand binding by an oligopeptide transporter protein , 1996, Nature Structural Biology.

[2]  Gennady M Verkhivker,et al.  Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. , 1995, Chemistry & biology.

[3]  Philip M. Dean,et al.  Hydration in drug design. 1. Multiple hydrogen-bonding features of water molecules in mediating protein-ligand interactions , 1995, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[4]  N. Gautham,et al.  Enhanced sampling of the molecular potential energy surface using mutually orthogonal latin squares: application to peptide structures. , 2003, Biophysical journal.

[5]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Computational methods for biomolecular docking. , 1996, Current opinion in structural biology.

[6]  J. Sussman,et al.  Gamma-chymotrypsin is a complex of alpha-chymotrypsin with its own autolysis products. , 1991, Biochemistry.

[7]  R M Knegtel,et al.  MONTY: a Monte Carlo approach to protein-DNA recognition. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[8]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking of ligands to an artificial active site: augmenting crystallographic analysis with computer modeling , 2003, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[9]  N Gautham,et al.  Conformational studies on enkephalins using the MOLS technique , 2004, Biopolymers.

[10]  N. Gautham,et al.  An application of experimental design using mutually orthogonal Latin squares in conformational studies of peptides. , 2004, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[11]  J. Thornton,et al.  Satisfying hydrogen bonding potential in proteins. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  Harold A. Scheraga,et al.  B‐spline method for energy minimization in grid‐based molecular mechanics calculations , 1998 .

[13]  Renxiao Wang,et al.  Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[15]  Jonathan W. Essex,et al.  FDS: Flexible ligand and receptor docking with a continuum solvent model and soft‐core energy function , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..

[16]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[17]  M. Totrov,et al.  Contact area difference (CAD): a robust measure to evaluate accuracy of protein models. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[18]  A. Atilgan,et al.  Coordination topology and stability for the native and binding conformers of chymotrypsin inhibitor 2 , 2001, Proteins.

[19]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions , 2002, Proteins.

[20]  H. Scheraga,et al.  Energy parameters in polypeptides. 10. Improved geometrical parameters and nonbonded interactions for use in the ECEPP/3 algorithm, with application to proline-containing peptides , 1994 .

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

[22]  G N Murshudov,et al.  The structural basis of sequence-independent peptide binding by OppA protein. , 1994, Science.

[23]  D. van der Spoel,et al.  Efficient docking of peptides to proteins without prior knowledge of the binding site , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[24]  P. Koehl,et al.  Application of a self-consistent mean field theory to predict protein side-chains conformation and estimate their conformational entropy. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[25]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function , 1998 .

[26]  C. Higgins,et al.  The crystal structures of the oligopeptide-binding protein OppA complexed with tripeptide and tetrapeptide ligands. , 1995, Structure.

[27]  Jonathan W. Essex,et al.  A review of protein-small molecule docking methods , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[28]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking , 2003, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..