Construction and Test of Ligand Decoy Sets Using MDock: Community Structure-Activity Resource Benchmarks for Binding Mode Prediction

Two sets of ligand binding decoys have been constructed for the community structure-activity resource (CSAR) benchmark by using the MDock and DOCK programs for rigid- and flexible-ligand docking, respectively. The decoys generated for each complex in the benchmark thoroughly cover the binding site and also contain a certain number of near-native binding modes. A few scoring functions have been evaluated using the ligand binding decoy sets for their abilities of predicting near-native binding modes. Among them, ITScore achieved a success rate of 86.7% for the rigid-ligand decoys and 79.7% for the flexible-ligand decoys, under the common definition of a successful prediction as root-mean-square deviation <2.0 Å from the native structure if the top-scored binding mode was considered. The decoy sets may serve as benchmarks for binding mode prediction of a scoring function, which are available at the CSAR Web site ( http://www.csardock.org/).

[1]  J. Gasteiger,et al.  ITERATIVE PARTIAL EQUALIZATION OF ORBITAL ELECTRONEGATIVITY – A RAPID ACCESS TO ATOMIC CHARGES , 1980 .

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

[3]  Irwin D. Kuntz,et al.  Development and validation of a modular, extensible docking program: DOCK 5 , 2006, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[4]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking , 2003, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[5]  Conrad C. Huang,et al.  UCSF Chimera—A visualization system for exploratory research and analysis , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[6]  Robin Taylor,et al.  Comparing protein–ligand docking programs is difficult , 2005, Proteins.

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

[8]  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..

[9]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein-ligand docking: recent advances and future directions. , 2010, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[10]  Todd J. A. Ewing,et al.  Critical evaluation of search algorithms for automated molecular docking and database screening , 1997, J. Comput. Chem..

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

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

[13]  Araz Jakalian,et al.  Fast, efficient generation of high‐quality atomic charges. AM1‐BCC model: I. Method , 2000 .

[14]  Christopher I. Bayly,et al.  Fast, efficient generation of high‐quality atomic charges. AM1‐BCC model: II. Parameterization and validation , 2002, J. Comput. Chem..

[15]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  An iterative knowledge‐based scoring function to predict protein–ligand interactions: II. Validation of the scoring function , 2006, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[17]  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..

[18]  Jin Li,et al.  On Evaluating Molecular-Docking Methods for Pose Prediction and Enrichment Factors , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[19]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  Efficient molecular docking of NMR structures: Application to HIV‐1 protease , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[20]  Jens Meiler,et al.  ROSETTALIGAND: Protein–small molecule docking with full side‐chain flexibility , 2006, Proteins.

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

[22]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  The Amber biomolecular simulation programs , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[23]  W Patrick Walters,et al.  A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance , 2004, Proteins.

[24]  SHENG-YOU HUANG,et al.  An iterative knowledge‐based scoring function to predict protein–ligand interactions: I. Derivation of interaction potentials , 2006, J. Comput. Chem..

[25]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy , 2004, Proteins.

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

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

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

[29]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Automated docking with grid‐based energy evaluation , 1992 .

[30]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  Scoring and Lessons Learned with the CSAR Benchmark Using an Improved Iterative Knowledge-Based Scoring Function , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[32]  Jeffrey Skolnick,et al.  Assessment of programs for ligand binding affinity prediction , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[33]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  Advances and Challenges in Protein-Ligand Docking , 2010, International journal of molecular sciences.

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

[35]  Michael M. Mysinger,et al.  Automated Docking Screens: A Feasibility Study , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.