Optimization of High Throughput Virtual Screening by Combining Shape-Matching and Docking Methods

Receptor flexibility is a critical issue in structure-based virtual screening methods. Although a multiple-receptor conformation docking is an efficient way to account for receptor flexibility, it is still too slow for large molecular libraries. It was reported that a fast ligand-centric, shape-based virtual screening was more consistent for hit enrichment than a typical single-receptor conformation docking. Thus, we designed a "distributed docking" method that improves virtual high throughput screening by combining a shape-matching method with a multiple-receptor conformation docking. Database compounds are classified in advance based on shape similarities to one of the crystal ligands complexed with the target protein. This classification enables us to pick the appropriate receptor conformation for a single-receptor conformation docking of a given compound, thereby avoiding time-consuming multiple docking. In particular, this approach utilizes cross-docking scores of known ligands to all available receptor structures in order to optimize the algorithm. The present virtual screening method was tested for reidentification of known PPARgamma and p38 MAP kinase active compounds. We demonstrate that this method improves the enrichment while maintaining the computation speed of a typical single-receptor conformation docking.

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

[2]  Heikki Mannila,et al.  Principles of Data Mining , 2001, Undergraduate Topics in Computer Science.

[3]  Andrew Smellie,et al.  Surrogate docking: structure-based virtual screening at high throughput speed , 2005, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[4]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Molecular docking to ensembles of protein structures. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[6]  J A McCammon,et al.  Accommodating protein flexibility in computational drug design. , 2000, Molecular pharmacology.

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

[8]  G. Vigers,et al.  Multiple active site corrections for docking and virtual screening. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[9]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Virtual screening methods that complement HTS. , 2004, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[10]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[11]  Pedro Alexandrino Fernandes,et al.  Protein–ligand docking: Current status and future challenges , 2006, Proteins.

[12]  R. Friesner,et al.  Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[13]  S. Teague Implications of protein flexibility for drug discovery , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[14]  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.

[15]  D. Rognan,et al.  Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[17]  Christopher W. Murray,et al.  The sensitivity of the results of molecular docking to induced fit effects: Application to thrombin, thermolysin and neuraminidase , 1999, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[18]  Matthew P. Repasky,et al.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[19]  G. Klebe Virtual ligand screening: strategies, perspectives and limitations , 2006, Drug Discovery Today.

[20]  William J. Welsh,et al.  Identification of a Minimal Subset of Receptor Conformations for Improved Multiple Conformation Docking and Two-Step Scoring , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[21]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Comparison of Topological, Shape, and Docking Methods in Virtual Screening , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[22]  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..