Critical evaluation of the research docking program for the CASP2 challenge

The binding positions of six small‐molecule ligands in their complexes with target proteins were predicted using our Research docking program for the CASP2 challenge. Research uses a Monte Carlo procedure with pairwise energies and allows for the conformational searching of ligand torsional space. We were able to predict 2 of the 5 noncovalent complexes within 2 Å root‐mean‐square (RMS) of the experimental structures as ranked by interaction energy or by a score calculated using our interaction evaluation program, Outrank. In addition, for 4 of the 5 noncovalent structures we found a docking within 2 Å RMS of the experimental structure within the top 20 dockings as ranked by energy. The main limitation in our approach is in the ability of the energy function and Outrank to discriminate among the lowest energy dockings. On the other hand, our success in exploring the multidimensional docking space of position, orientation and conformation is encouraging. Proteins, Suppl. 1:205–209, 1997. © 1998 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  A Caflisch,et al.  Monte Carlo docking of oligopeptides to proteins , 1992, Proteins.

[2]  D. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing , 1990, Proteins.

[3]  Randy J. Read,et al.  Monte Carlo algorithms for docking to proteins , 1995 .

[4]  W F van Gunsteren,et al.  A molecular dynamics study of the C-terminal fragment of the L7/L12 ribosomal protein. Secondary structure motion in a 150 picosecond trajectory. , 1985, Journal of molecular biology.

[5]  Robert Huber,et al.  On the disordered activation domain in trypsinogen: chemical labelling and low‐temperature crystallography , 1982 .

[6]  J R Helliwell,et al.  High-resolution structures of single-metal-substituted concanavalin A: the Co,Ca-protein at 1.6 A and the Ni,Ca-protein at 2.0 A. , 1994, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[7]  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..

[8]  J R Helliwell,et al.  Refined structure of concanavalin A complexed with methyl alpha-D-mannopyranoside at 2.0 A resolution and comparison with the saccharide-free structure. , 1994, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[9]  Randy J. Read,et al.  A multiple‐start Monte Carlo docking method , 1992 .

[10]  Randy J. Read,et al.  Multiple-Start Monte Carlo Docking of Flexible Ligands , 1994 .

[11]  R. Huber,et al.  The Geometry of the Reactive Site and of the Peptide Groups in Trypsin, Trypsinogen and its Complexes with Inhibitors , 1983 .

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

[13]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Detailed ab initio prediction of lysozyme–antibody complex with 1.6 Å accuracy , 1994, Nature Structural Biology.

[14]  Robert M. Stroud,et al.  The accuracy of refined protein structures: comparison of two independently refined models of bovine trypsin , 1978 .