Predicting protein-ligand binding affinities: a low scoring game?

We have investigated the performance of five well known scoring functions in predicting the binding affinities of a diverse set of 205 protein-ligand complexes with known experimental binding constants, and also on subsets of mutually similar complexes. We have found that the overall performance of the scoring functions on the diverse set is disappointing, with none of the functions achieving r(2) values above 0.32 on the whole dataset. Performance on the subsets was mixed, with four of the five functions predicting fairly well the binding affinities of 35 proteinases, but none of the functions producing any useful correlation on a set of 38 aspartic proteinases. We consider two algorithms for producing consensus scoring functions, one based on a linear combination of scores from the five individual functions and the other on averaging the rankings produced by the five functions. We find that both algorithms produce consensus functions that generally perform slightly better than the best individual scoring function on a given dataset.

[1]  E. Shakhnovich,et al.  SMall Molecule Growth 2001 (SMoG2001): an improved knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[2]  Robert P Sheridan,et al.  Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? , 2002, Drug discovery today.

[3]  T. Langer,et al.  Virtual screening: an effective tool for lead structure discovery? , 2001, Current pharmaceutical design.

[4]  Lahana,et al.  How many leads from HTS? , 1999, Drug discovery today.

[5]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Structure-based discovery of inhibitors of thymidylate synthase. , 1993, Science.

[6]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  Consideration of Molecular Weight during Compound Selection in Virtual Target-Based Database Screening , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[7]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  FLOG: A system to select ‘quasi-flexible’ ligands complementary to a receptor of known three-dimensional structure , 1994, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[8]  Renxiao Wang,et al.  The PDBbind database: collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[9]  F E Cohen,et al.  Modeling protein-ligand complexes. , 1996, Current opinion in structural biology.

[10]  G. V. Paolini,et al.  Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes , 1997, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[11]  G. Klebe,et al.  Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[13]  D. E. Clark,et al.  Flexible docking using tabu search and an empirical estimate of binding affinity , 1998, Proteins.

[14]  Luhua Lai,et al.  SCORE: A New Empirical Method for Estimating the Binding Affinity of a Protein-Ligand Complex , 1998 .

[15]  D. J. Price,et al.  Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[16]  I. Kuntz,et al.  The maximal affinity of ligands. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

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

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

[20]  Janet M. Thornton,et al.  BLEEP—potential of mean force describing protein–ligand interactions: I. Generating potential , 1999 .

[21]  Ramesha,et al.  How many leads from HTS? - Comment. , 2000, Drug discovery today.

[22]  G. Klebe,et al.  DrugScore meets CoMFA: adaptation of fields for molecular comparison (AFMoC) or how to tailor knowledge-based pair-potentials to a particular protein. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[23]  A. Ortiz,et al.  Evaluation of docking functions for protein-ligand docking. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure , 1994, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[25]  Mark A. Murcko,et al.  Virtual screening : an overview , 1998 .

[26]  I. Muegge Effect of ligand volume correction on PMF scoring , 2001, J. Comput. Chem..

[27]  Luhua Lai,et al.  Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[29]  I. Kuntz Structure-Based Strategies for Drug Design and Discovery , 1992, Science.

[30]  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.

[31]  Janet M. Thornton,et al.  BLEEP—potential of mean force describing protein–ligand interactions: II. Calculation of binding energies and comparison with experimental data , 1999 .

[32]  M Rarey,et al.  Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[33]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  Prediction of binding constants of protein ligands: A fast method for the prioritization of hits obtained from de novo design or 3D database search programs , 1998, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[34]  G M Verkhivker,et al.  A mean field model of ligand-protein interactions: implications for the structural assessment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease complexes and receptor-specific binding. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  J M Blaney,et al.  A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. , 1982, Journal of molecular biology.

[36]  Y. Martin,et al.  A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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