Optimizing the affinity and specificity of ligand binding with the inclusion of solvation effect

Solvation effect is an important factor for protein–ligand binding in aqueous water. Previous scoring function of protein–ligand interactions rarely incorporates the solvation model into the quantification of protein–ligand interactions, mainly due to the immense computational cost, especially in the structure‐based virtual screening, and nontransferable application of independently optimized atomic solvation parameters. In order to overcome these barriers, we effectively combine knowledge‐based atom–pair potentials and the atomic solvation energy of charge‐independent implicit solvent model in the optimization of binding affinity and specificity. The resulting scoring functions with optimized atomic solvation parameters is named as specificity and affinity with solvation effect (SPA‐SE). The performance of SPA‐SE is evaluated and compared to 20 other scoring functions, as well as SPA. The comparative results show that SPA‐SE outperforms all other scoring functions in binding affinity prediction and “native” pose identification. Our optimization validates that solvation effect is an important regulator to the stability and specificity of protein–ligand binding. The development strategy of SPA‐SE sets an example for other scoring function to account for the solvation effect in biomolecular recognitions. Proteins 2015; 83:1632–1642. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  C. Brooks,et al.  Recent advances in the development and application of implicit solvent models in biomolecule simulations. , 2004, Current opinion in structural biology.

[2]  Xiliang Zheng,et al.  Thermodynamic and kinetic specificities of ligand binding , 2013 .

[3]  Zhihai Liu,et al.  Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on an Updated Benchmark: 2. Evaluation Methods and General Results , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[4]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  AffinDB: a freely accessible database of affinities for protein–ligand complexes from the PDB , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[5]  Gennady M Verkhivker,et al.  Energy landscape theory, funnels, specificity, and optimal criterion of biomolecular binding. , 2003, Physical review letters.

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

[7]  P. Kollman,et al.  Solvation Model Based on Weighted Solvent Accessible Surface Area , 2001 .

[8]  B. Berne,et al.  Dewetting and hydrophobic interaction in physical and biological systems. , 2009, Annual review of physical chemistry.

[9]  J. Janin,et al.  Principles of protein-protein recognition from structure to thermodynamics. , 1995, Biochimie.

[10]  M. Gilson,et al.  The statistical-thermodynamic basis for computation of binding affinities: a critical review. , 1997, Biophysical journal.

[11]  Ken A Dill,et al.  Modeling water, the hydrophobic effect, and ion solvation. , 2005, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[12]  P. Kollman,et al.  Calculating structures and free energies of complex molecules: combining molecular mechanics and continuum models. , 2000, Accounts of chemical research.

[13]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Water mediation in protein folding and molecular recognition. , 2006, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[14]  Jian Zhang,et al.  Design and designability of protein-based assemblies. , 2014, Current opinion in structural biology.

[15]  C. David Andersson,et al.  Postprocessing of Docked Protein-Ligand Complexes Using Implicit Solvation Models , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[16]  Xiliang Zheng,et al.  Quantifying intrinsic specificity: a potential complement to affinity in drug screening. , 2007, Physical review letters.

[17]  Wei Zhang,et al.  An extended aqueous solvation model based on atom-weighted solvent accessible surface areas: SAWSA v2.0 model , 2005, Journal of molecular modeling.

[18]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  A knowledge-based scoring function for protein-RNA interactions derived from a statistical mechanics-based iterative method , 2014, Nucleic acids research.

[19]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Beware of Machine Learning-Based Scoring Functions - On the Danger of Developing Black Boxes , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[20]  D. Baker,et al.  Computational redesign of protein-protein interaction specificity , 2004, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[21]  Christoph A. Sotriffer,et al.  SFCscoreRF: A Random Forest-Based Scoring Function for Improved Affinity Prediction of Protein-Ligand Complexes , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[22]  Jie Li,et al.  PDB-wide collection of binding data: current status of the PDBbind database , 2015, Bioinform..

[23]  Jian Zhang,et al.  Metal-coupled folding of Cys2His2 zinc-finger. , 2008, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[24]  M. Sippl.  Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to the knowledge-based prediction of local structures in globular proteins. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[25]  Jie Li,et al.  Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on an Updated Benchmark: 1. Compilation of the Test Set , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[26]  R. Levy,et al.  Computer simulations with explicit solvent: recent progress in the thermodynamic decomposition of free energies and in modeling electrostatic effects. , 1998, Annual review of physical chemistry.

[27]  Renxiao Wang,et al.  The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[28]  Zhirong Sun,et al.  Quantitative prediction of protein–protein binding affinity with a potential of mean force considering volume correction , 2009, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[29]  Tom L. Blundell,et al.  Does a More Precise Chemical Description of Protein–Ligand Complexes Lead to More Accurate Prediction of Binding Affinity? , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[30]  Jesús S. Dehesa,et al.  Insight into the informational-structure behavior of the Diels-Alder reaction of cyclopentadiene and maleic anhydride , 2014, Journal of Molecular Modeling.

[31]  Jin Wang,et al.  Specificity and affinity quantification of protein-protein interactions , 2013, Bioinform..

[32]  John B. O. Mitchell,et al.  Comments on "Leave-Cluster-Out Cross-Validation Is Appropriate for Scoring Functions Derived from Diverse Protein Data Sets": Significance for the Validation of Scoring Functions , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[33]  A. D. McLachlan,et al.  Solvation energy in protein folding and binding , 1986, Nature.

[34]  Jun-tao Guo,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of protein–DNA interactions using an optimized knowledge-based potential , 2005, Nucleic acids research.

[35]  Peter Gedeck,et al.  Leave-Cluster-Out Cross-Validation Is Appropriate for Scoring Functions Derived from Diverse Protein Data Sets , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[36]  Richard D. Smith,et al.  CSAR Benchmark Exercise of 2010: Selection of the Protein–Ligand Complexes , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[37]  Zhirong Sun,et al.  Quantitative prediction of protein‐protein binding affinity with a potential of mean force considering volume correction , 2010 .

[38]  J. Correa-Basurto,et al.  Automated docking for novel drug discovery , 2013, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[39]  Jun Wang,et al.  A computational approach to simplifying the protein folding alphabet , 1999, Nature Structural Biology.

[40]  Zhiqiang Yan,et al.  Optimizing Scoring Function of Protein-Nucleic Acid Interactions with Both Affinity and Specificity , 2013, PloS one.

[41]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Topography of funneled landscapes determines the thermodynamics and kinetics of protein folding , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  Peter G Wolynes,et al.  Role of water mediated interactions in protein-protein recognition landscapes. , 2003, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

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

[44]  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.

[45]  B. Lee,et al.  The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. , 1971, Journal of molecular biology.

[46]  Gevorg Grigoryan,et al.  Design of protein-interaction specificity affords selective bZIP-binding peptides , 2009, Nature.

[47]  Brian K. Shoichet,et al.  Virtual screening of chemical libraries , 2004, Nature.

[48]  D. Baker,et al.  Computational redesign of endonuclease DNA binding and cleavage specificity , 2006, Nature.

[49]  Stefano Forli,et al.  Virtual screening with AutoDock: theory and practice , 2010, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[50]  Xiakun Chu,et al.  Quantifying the topography of the intrinsic energy landscape of flexible biomolecular recognition , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[51]  Julia M. Shifman,et al.  Exploring the origins of binding specificity through the computational redesign of calmodulin , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[52]  Jie Liu,et al.  Classification of Current Scoring Functions , 2015, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[53]  Liang Hu,et al.  A comparison of various optimization algorithms of protein–ligand docking programs by fitness accuracy , 2014, Journal of Molecular Modeling.

[54]  Yu Liu,et al.  FIPSDock: A new molecular docking technique driven by fully informed swarm optimization algorithm , 2013, J. Comput. Chem..

[55]  Zhiqiang Yan,et al.  Specificity quantification of biomolecular recognition and its implication for drug discovery , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[56]  W A Koppensteiner,et al.  Knowledge-based potentials--back to the roots. , 1998, Biochemistry. Biokhimiia.

[57]  John B. O. Mitchell,et al.  A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking , 2010, Bioinform..

[58]  P. Harbury,et al.  Automated design of specificity in molecular recognition , 2003, Nature Structural Biology.

[59]  T. Baker,et al.  Specificity versus stability in computational protein design. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[60]  Fenglou Mao,et al.  Potential of mean force for protein–protein interaction studies , 2002, Proteins.

[61]  Song Liu,et al.  A knowledge-based energy function for protein-ligand, protein-protein, and protein-DNA complexes. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[62]  R. Cramer,et al.  Validation of the general purpose tripos 5.2 force field , 1989 .

[63]  Traian Sulea,et al.  Solvation models: theory and validation. , 2014, Current pharmaceutical design.

[64]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Inclusion of Solvation in Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculations Using the Generalized-Born Model , 1999 .

[65]  Xiaojie Xu,et al.  Empirical Aqueous Solvation Models Based on Accessible Surface Areas with Implicit Electrostatics , 2002 .

[66]  Charles L. Brooks,et al.  Efficient approximate all‐atom solvent accessible surface area method parameterized for folded and denatured protein conformations , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..