Freely Available Conformer Generation Methods: How Good Are They?

Conformer generation has important implications in cheminformatics, particularly in computational drug discovery where the quality of conformer generation software may affect the outcome of a virtual screening exercise. We examine the performance of four freely available small molecule conformer generation tools (Balloon, Confab, Frog2, and RDKit) alongside a commercial tool (MOE). The aim of this study is 3-fold: (i) to identify which tools most accurately reproduce experimentally determined structures; (ii) to examine the diversity of the generated conformational set; and (iii) to benchmark the computational time expended. These aspects were tested using a set of 708 drug-like molecules assembled from the OMEGA validation set and the Astex Diverse Set. These molecules have varying physicochemical properties and at least one known X-ray crystal structure. We found that RDKit and Confab are statistically better than other methods at generating low rmsd conformers to the known structure. RDKit is particularly suited for less flexible molecules while Confab, with its systematic approach, is able to generate conformers which are geometrically closer to the experimentally determined structure for molecules with a large number of rotatable bonds (≥10). In our tests RDKit also resulted as the second fastest method after Frog2. In order to enhance the performance of RDKit, we developed a postprocessing algorithm to build a diverse and representative set of conformers which also contains a close conformer to the known structure. Our analysis indicates that, with postprocessing, RDKit is a valid free alternative to commercial, proprietary software.

[1]  G. Chang,et al.  An internal-coordinate Monte Carlo method for searching conformational space , 1989 .

[2]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases* , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[3]  Mark S. Johnson,et al.  Generating Conformer Ensembles Using a Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[4]  Xicheng Wang,et al.  Cyndi: a multi-objective evolution algorithm based method for bioactive molecular conformational generation , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[5]  D C Spellmeyer,et al.  Conformational analysis using distance geometry methods. , 1997, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[6]  F. Allen The Cambridge Structural Database: a quarter of a million crystal structures and rising. , 2002, Acta crystallographica. Section B, Structural science.

[7]  Paul D Lyne,et al.  Structure-based virtual screening: an overview. , 2002, Drug discovery today.

[8]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  New methodologies for ligand-based virtual screening. , 2005, Current pharmaceutical design.

[9]  Valerie J. Gillet,et al.  Comparison of Conformational Analysis Techniques To Generate Pharmacophore Hypotheses Using Catalyst , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[10]  Egon L. Willighagen,et al.  The Blue Obelisk—Interoperability in Chemical Informatics , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[11]  Jonas Boström,et al.  Reproducing the conformations of protein-bound ligands: A critical evaluation of several popular conformational searching tools , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[12]  Pierre Tufféry,et al.  Frog2: Efficient 3D conformation ensemble generator for small compounds , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[13]  Martin Stahl,et al.  Small Molecule Conformational Preferences Derived from Crystal Structure Data. A Medicinal Chemistry Focused Analysis , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[14]  Christof H. Schwab,et al.  Conformations and 3D pharmacophore searching. , 2010, Drug discovery today. Technologies.

[15]  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..

[16]  Jacques Chomilier,et al.  Frog: a FRee Online druG 3D conformation generator , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[17]  Eric J. Martin,et al.  Conformational Sampling of Bioactive Molecules: A Comparative Study , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[18]  Chris Morley,et al.  Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox , 2011, J. Cheminformatics.

[19]  J. Gasteiger,et al.  Automatic generation of 3D-atomic coordinates for organic molecules , 1990 .

[20]  Jitender Verma,et al.  3D-QSAR in drug design--a review. , 2010, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[21]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  A fast and efficient method to generate biologically relevant conformations , 1994, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[22]  Stephen R. Wilson,et al.  Applications of simulated annealing to the conformational analysis of flexible molecules , 1991 .

[23]  Paul N. Mortenson,et al.  Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  David S. Wishart,et al.  DrugBank 3.0: a comprehensive resource for ‘Omics’ research on drugs , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[25]  Chris Morley,et al.  Pybel: a Python wrapper for the OpenBabel cheminformatics toolkit , 2008, Chemistry Central journal.

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

[27]  Anita R. Maguire,et al.  Confab - Systematic generation of diverse low-energy conformers , 2011, J. Cheminformatics.

[28]  J. S. Dixon,et al.  Distance Geometry in Molecular Modeling , 2007 .

[29]  Timothy F. Havel,et al.  The theory and practice of distance geometry , 1983, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology.

[30]  Irwin D. Kuntz,et al.  Automated flexible ligand docking method and its application for database search , 1997 .

[31]  W. Goddard,et al.  UFF, a full periodic table force field for molecular mechanics and molecular dynamics simulations , 1992 .

[32]  Jonas Boström,et al.  MIMUMBA Revisited: Torsion Angle Rules for Conformer Generation Derived from X-ray Structures , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[33]  Nicolas Foloppe,et al.  Conformational Sampling of Druglike Molecules with MOE and Catalyst: Implications for Pharmacophore Modeling and Virtual Screening , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[34]  J. Gasteiger,et al.  FROM ATOMS AND BONDS TO THREE-DIMENSIONAL ATOMIC COORDINATES : AUTOMATIC MODEL BUILDERS , 1993 .

[35]  David Weininger,et al.  SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules , 1988, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[36]  P. Charifson,et al.  Conformational analysis of drug-like molecules bound to proteins: an extensive study of ligand reorganization upon binding. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[37]  Janet M. Thornton,et al.  The CoFactor database: organic cofactors in enzyme catalysis , 2010, Bioinform..

[38]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Comparison of Automatic Three-Dimensional Model Builders Using 639 X-ray Structures , 1994, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[39]  Thierry Langer,et al.  Comparative Performance Assessment of the Conformational Model Generators Omega and Catalyst: A Large-Scale Survey on the Retrieval of Protein-Bound Ligand Conformations , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[40]  M C Nicklaus,et al.  Conformational changes of small molecules binding to proteins. , 1995, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[41]  Tania Pencheva,et al.  BMC Bioinformatics BioMed Central Methodology article AMMOS: Automated Molecular Mechanics Optimization tool for in silico Screening , 2022 .

[42]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Flexible ligand docking using conformational ensembles , 1998, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[43]  Keith T. Butler,et al.  Toward accurate relative energy predictions of the bioactive conformation of drugs , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

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