ALiBERO: Evolving a Team of Complementary Pocket Conformations Rather than a Single Leader

Docking and virtual screening (VS) reach maximum potential when the receptor displays the structural changes needed for accurate ligand binding. Unfortunately, these conformational changes are often poorly represented in experimental structures or homology models, debilitating their docking performance. Recently, we have shown that receptors optimized with our LiBERO method (Ligand-guided Backbone Ensemble Receptor Optimization) were able to better discriminate active ligands from inactives in flexible-ligand VS docking experiments. The LiBERO method relies on the use of ligand information for selecting the best performing individual pockets from ensembles derived from normal-mode analysis or Monte Carlo. Here we present ALiBERO, a new computational tool that has expanded the pocket selection from single to multiple, allowing for automatic iteration of the sampling-selection procedure. The selection of pockets is performed by a dual method that uses exhaustive combinatorial search plus individual addition of pockets, selecting only those that maximize the discrimination of known actives compounds from decoys. The resulting optimized pockets showed increased VS performance when later used in much larger unrelated test sets consisting of biologically active and inactive ligands. In this paper we will describe the design and implementation of the algorithm, using as a reference the human estrogen receptor alpha.

[1]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  A new method for ligand docking to flexible receptors by dual alanine scanning and refinement (SCARE) , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[2]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Structure based prediction of subtype-selectivity for adenosine receptor antagonists , 2011, Neuropharmacology.

[3]  Heather A Carlson,et al.  Exploring experimental sources of multiple protein conformations in structure-based drug design. , 2007, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[4]  Jozef Hritz,et al.  Impact of plasticity and flexibility on docking results for cytochrome P450 2D6: a combined approach of molecular dynamics and ligand docking. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[5]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Structure-Based Discovery of Novel Chemotypes for Adenosine A 2 A Receptor Antagonists , 2010 .

[6]  Eric T. Kim,et al.  How does a drug molecule find its target binding site? , 2011, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[7]  R Abagyan,et al.  Discovery of antiandrogen activity of nonsteroidal scaffolds of marketed drugs , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative. , 2008, Current opinion in structural biology.

[9]  William L. Jorgensen,et al.  Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[10]  X. Zou,et al.  Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: Considering protein structural variations in molecular docking , 2006, Proteins.

[11]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Structure-based discovery of novel chemotypes for adenosine A(2A) receptor antagonists. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[12]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Ligand-guided receptor optimization. , 2012, Methods in molecular biology.

[13]  Sérgio Simões,et al.  Ligand-guided optimization of CXCR4 homology models for virtual screening using a multiple chemotype approach , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[14]  Somesh D. Sharma,et al.  Managing protein flexibility in docking and its applications. , 2009, Drug discovery today.

[15]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Pocketome: an encyclopedia of small-molecule binding sites in 4D , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[16]  Pedro Alexandrino Fernandes,et al.  Protein–ligand docking: Current status and future challenges , 2006, Proteins.

[17]  Marcel L. Verdonk,et al.  Protein-Ligand Docking against Non-Native Protein Conformers , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[18]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  SimiCon: a web tool for protein-ligand model comparison through calculation of equivalent atomic contacts , 2010, Bioinform..

[19]  Oliver Korb,et al.  Potential and Limitations of Ensemble Docking , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[20]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Analysis of full and partial agonists binding to β2‐adrenergic receptor suggests a role of transmembrane helix V in agonist‐specific conformational changes , 2009, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[21]  M L Teodoro,et al.  Conformational flexibility models for the receptor in structure based drug design. , 2003, Current pharmaceutical design.

[22]  S. Moro,et al.  Pyrazolo-triazolo-pyrimidines as adenosine receptor antagonists: Effect of the N-5 bond type on the affinity and selectivity at the four adenosine receptor subtypes , 2007, Purinergic Signalling.

[23]  R. Abagyan,et al.  GPCR 3 D homology models for ligand screening : Lessons learned from blind predictions of adenosine A 2 a receptor complex , 2009 .

[24]  M. Karplus,et al.  Molecular dynamics and protein function. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Biased probability Monte Carlo conformational searches and electrostatic calculations for peptides and proteins. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[26]  Maxim Totrov,et al.  Ligand binding site superposition and comparison based on Atomic Property Fields: identification of distant homologues, convergent evolution and PDB-wide clustering of binding sites , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[27]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Discovery of novel chemotypes to a G-protein-coupled receptor through ligand-steered homology modeling and structure-based virtual screening. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[28]  Yan Li,et al.  Discovery of Novel Checkpoint Kinase 1 Inhibitors by Virtual Screening Based on Multiple Crystal Structures , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[29]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Recipes for the Selection of Experimental Protein Conformations for Virtual Screening , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[30]  John P. Overington,et al.  ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[31]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Pocketome via Comprehensive Identification and Classification of Ligand Binding Envelopes* , 2005, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[32]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Four-dimensional docking: a fast and accurate account of discrete receptor flexibility in ligand docking. , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[34]  S. Teague Implications of protein flexibility for drug discovery , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

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

[36]  R Abagyan,et al.  Homology modeling by the ICM method , 1995, Proteins.

[37]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  GPCR 3D homology models for ligand screening: Lessons learned from blind predictions of adenosine A2a receptor complex , 2010, Proteins.

[38]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[39]  X. Barril,et al.  Unveiling the full potential of flexible receptor docking using multiple crystallographic structures. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[40]  H. Scheraga,et al.  Energy parameters in polypeptides. 10. Improved geometrical parameters and nonbonded interactions for use in the ECEPP/3 algorithm, with application to proline-containing peptides , 1994 .

[41]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Representing receptor flexibility in ligand docking through relevant normal modes. , 2005, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[42]  Adrian H Elcock,et al.  Structure selection for protein kinase docking and virtual screening: homology models or crystal structures? , 2006, Current protein & peptide science.

[43]  Albert C. Pan,et al.  Pathway and mechanism of drug binding to G-protein-coupled receptors , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[45]  Rommie E. Amaro,et al.  An improved relaxed complex scheme for receptor flexibility in computer-aided drug design , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[46]  J Andrew McCammon,et al.  Target flexibility in molecular recognition. , 2005, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[47]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Docking and scoring with ICM: the benchmarking results and strategies for improvement , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[48]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Consistent Improvement of Cross-Docking Results Using Binding Site Ensembles Generated with Elastic Network Normal Modes , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[49]  R Abagyan,et al.  Flexible protein–ligand docking by global energy optimization in internal coordinates , 1997, Proteins.

[50]  James Andrew McCammon,et al.  Predictive Power of Molecular Dynamics Receptor Structures in Virtual Screening , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[51]  Jonathan W. Essex,et al.  Ensemble Docking into Multiple Crystallographically Derived Protein Structures: An Evaluation Based on the Statistical Analysis of Enrichments , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[52]  J A McCammon,et al.  Accommodating protein flexibility in computational drug design. , 2000, Molecular pharmacology.

[53]  Reiji Teramoto,et al.  Supervised Consensus Scoring for Docking and Virtual Screening , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[54]  Charles L. Brooks,et al.  Community-wide assessment of GPCR structure modelling and ligand docking: GPCR Dock 2008 , 2009, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.