SimG: An Alignment Based Method for Evaluating the Similarity of Small Molecules and Binding Sites

In this study, a Gaussian volume overlap and chemical feature based molecular similarity metric was devised, and a downhill simplex searching was carried out to evaluate the corresponding similarity. By representing the shapes of both the candidate small molecules and the binding site with chemical features and comparing the corresponding Gaussian volumes overlaps, the active compounds could be identified. These two aspects compose the proposed method named SimG which supports both structure-based and ligand-based strategies. The validity of the proposed method was examined by analyzing the similarity score variation between actives and decoys as well as correlation among distinct reference methods. A retrospective virtual screening test was carried out on DUD data sets, demonstrating that the performance of structure-based shape matching virtual screening in DUD data sets is substantially dependent on some physical properties, especially the solvent-exposure extent of the binding site: The enrichments of targets with less solvent-exposed binding sites generally exceeds that of the one with more solvent-exposed binding sites and even surpasses the corresponding ligand-based virtual screening.

[1]  Nicolas Moitessier,et al.  Docking Ligands into Flexible and Solvated Macromolecules. 4. Are Popular Scoring Functions Accurate for this Class of Proteins? , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[2]  Ajay N. Jain Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[3]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Quo vadis, virtual screening? A comprehensive survey of prospective applications. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[4]  Michael Nilges,et al.  Comparative Evaluation of 3D Virtual Ligand Screening Methods: Impact of the Molecular Alignment on Enrichment , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[5]  Y. Martin,et al.  Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity? , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[6]  James L. Melville,et al.  Better than Random? The Chemotype Enrichment Problem , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[7]  R. Mcweeny,et al.  Shape and similarity: two aspects of molecular recognition , 1991 .

[8]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  Distributed automated docking of flexible ligands to proteins: Parallel applications of AutoDock 2.4 , 1996, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[10]  A. Gorse Diversity in medicinal chemistry space. , 2006, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

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

[12]  Robert D Clark,et al.  Neighborhood behavior: a useful concept for validation of "molecular diversity" descriptors. , 1996, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[13]  Todd J. A. Ewing,et al.  DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[14]  Jude W. Shavlik,et al.  Spherical-harmonic decomposition for molecular recognition in electron-density maps , 2009, Int. J. Data Min. Bioinform..

[15]  Christopher I. Bayly,et al.  Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the "Early Recognition" Problem , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[16]  W. Graham Richards,et al.  Ultrafast shape recognition to search compound databases for similar molecular shapes , 2007, J. Comput. Chem..

[17]  B. Fan,et al.  Molecular similarity and diversity in chemoinformatics: From theory to applications , 2006, Molecular Diversity.

[18]  Hanna Geppert,et al.  Current Trends in Ligand-Based Virtual Screening: Molecular Representations, Data Mining Methods, New Application Areas, and Performance Evaluation , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[19]  Molecular shape, dimensions, and shape selective catalysis , 2003 .

[20]  Anthony Nicholls,et al.  What do we know and when do we know it? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[21]  Terry R. Stouch,et al.  The errors of our ways: taking account of error in computer-aided drug design to build confidence intervals for our next 25 years , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[22]  G. Klebe,et al.  Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. , 2002, Angewandte Chemie.

[23]  Robert D. Clark,et al.  Managing bias in ROC curves , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[24]  Honglin Li,et al.  A novel, customizable and optimizable parameter method using spherical harmonics for molecular shape similarity comparisons , 2011, Journal of Molecular Modeling.

[25]  Takayuki Kotani,et al.  Rapid Evaluation of Molecular Shape Similarity Index Using Pairwise Calculation of the Nearest Atomic Distances , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[26]  Tom Fawcett,et al.  An introduction to ROC analysis , 2006, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[27]  Lazaros Mavridis,et al.  Toward High Throughput 3D Virtual Screening Using Spherical Harmonic Surface Representations , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[28]  Richard D. Taylor,et al.  Improved protein–ligand docking using GOLD , 2003, Proteins.

[29]  Tjelvar S. G. Olsson,et al.  The good, the bad and the twisted: a survey of ligand geometry in protein crystal structures , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[30]  Janet M. Thornton,et al.  Real spherical harmonic expansion coefficients as 3D shape descriptors for protein binding pocket and ligand comparisons , 2005, Bioinform..

[31]  Lora Mak,et al.  An extension of spherical harmonics to region-based rotationally invariant descriptors for molecular shape description and comparison. , 2008, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

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

[33]  Pieter F. W. Stouten,et al.  Fast prediction and visualization of protein binding pockets with PASS , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[34]  C. E. Peishoff,et al.  A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[35]  Jie Liang,et al.  CASTp: computed atlas of surface topography of proteins with structural and topographical mapping of functionally annotated residues , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[36]  Pedro J Ballester,et al.  Ultrafast shape recognition: method and applications. , 2011, Future medicinal chemistry.

[37]  Jorge M. C. Marques,et al.  How Different Are Two Chemical Structures? , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[38]  J. A. Grant,et al.  A Gaussian Description of Molecular Shape , 1995 .

[39]  Andreas Zell,et al.  Optimal assignment methods for ligand-based virtual screening , 2009, J. Cheminformatics.

[40]  Brian K. Shoichet,et al.  Molecular docking using shape descriptors , 1992 .

[41]  J. A. Grant,et al.  A fast method of molecular shape comparison: A simple application of a Gaussian description of molecular shape , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

[42]  Obdulia Rabal,et al.  APIF: A New Interaction Fingerprint Based on Atom Pairs and Its Application to Virtual Screening , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[43]  J. Andrew Grant,et al.  Small Molecule Shape-Fingerprints , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[44]  Andreas Bender,et al.  How Similar Are Similarity Searching Methods? A Principal Component Analysis of Molecular Descriptor Space , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[45]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Recommendations for evaluation of computational methods , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[46]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[47]  Andrew C. Good,et al.  Utilization of Gaussian functions for the rapid evaluation of molecular similarity , 1992, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[48]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Molecular Shape and Medicinal Chemistry: A Perspective , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[49]  N. Nikolova,et al.  International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, LUMO energy ± The Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital (LUMO) , 2022 .

[50]  R. Glen,et al.  Molecular similarity: a key technique in molecular informatics. , 2004, Organic & biomolecular chemistry.

[51]  David W. Ritchie,et al.  Comparison of Ligand-Based and Receptor-Based Virtual Screening of HIV Entry Inhibitors for the CXCR4 and CCR5 Receptors Using 3D Ligand Shape Matching and Ligand-Receptor Docking , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[52]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Computational methods for biomolecular docking. , 1996, Current opinion in structural biology.

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

[54]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Prediction of the binding energy for small molecules, peptides and proteins , 1999, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[55]  Simona Distinto,et al.  Evaluation of the performance of 3D virtual screening protocols: RMSD comparisons, enrichment assessments, and decoy selection—What can we learn from earlier mistakes? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[56]  A Srinivas Reddy,et al.  Virtual screening in drug discovery -- a computational perspective. , 2007, Current protein & peptide science.

[57]  D. Schomburg,et al.  Hydrogen bonding and molecular surface shape complementarity as a basis for protein docking. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[58]  Paul W Finn,et al.  Ultrafast shape recognition: evaluating a new ligand-based virtual screening technology. , 2009, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[59]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  Mathematical Correction for Fingerprint Similarity Measures to Improve Chemical Retrieval , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[60]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Rapid Shape-Based Ligand Alignment and Virtual Screening Method Based on Atom/Feature-Pair Similarities and Volume Overlap Scoring , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..