Toward a unified scoring function for native state discrimination and drug-binding pocket recognition.

Protein folding and receptor-ligand recognition are fundamental processes for any living organism. Although folding and ligand recognition are based on the same chemistry, the existing empirical scoring functions target just one problem: predicting the correct fold or the correct binding pose. We here introduce a statistical potential which considers moieties as fundamental units. The scoring function is able to deal with both folding and ligand pocket recognition problems with a performance comparable to the scoring functions specifically tailored for one of the two tasks. We foresee that the capability of the new scoring function to tackle both problems in a unified framework will be a key to deal with the induced fit phenomena, in which a target protein changes significantly its conformation upon binding. Moreover, the new scoring function might be useful in docking protocols towards intrinsically disordered proteins, whose flexibility cannot be handled with the available docking software.

[1]  Jorge Nocedal,et al.  Algorithm 778: L-BFGS-B: Fortran subroutines for large-scale bound-constrained optimization , 1997, TOMS.

[2]  Zukang Feng,et al.  The chemical component dictionary: complete descriptions of constituent molecules in experimentally determined 3D macromolecules in the Protein Data Bank , 2015, Bioinform..

[3]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  A semiempirical free energy force field with charge‐based desolvation , 2007, J. Comput. Chem..

[4]  M. Karplus,et al.  Effective energy function for proteins in solution , 1999, Proteins.

[5]  P. Kollman,et al.  An all atom force field for simulations of proteins and nucleic acids , 1986, Journal of computational chemistry.

[6]  J Skolnick,et al.  Evaluation of atomic level mean force potentials via inverse folding and inverse refinement of protein structures: atomic burial position and pairwise non-bonded interactions. , 1996, Protein engineering.

[7]  B. McConkey,et al.  Discrimination of native protein structures using atom–atom contact scoring , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  Arthur J. Olson,et al.  AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[9]  A. Tenenbaum,et al.  Thermal compaction of the intrinsically disordered protein tau: entropic, structural, and hydrophobic factors. , 2017, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[10]  R. Dror,et al.  Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field , 2010, Proteins.

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

[12]  T. Schwede,et al.  QMEANclust: estimation of protein model quality by combining a composite scoring function with structural density information , 2009, BMC Structural Biology.

[13]  Robert L. Baldwin,et al.  Protein folding from 1961 to 1982 , 1999, Nature Structural Biology.

[14]  Rodrigo Quiroga,et al.  Vinardo: A Scoring Function Based on Autodock Vina Improves Scoring, Docking, and Virtual Screening , 2016, PloS one.

[15]  Alessandro Laio,et al.  A simple and efficient statistical potential for scoring ensembles of protein structures , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[16]  András Fiser,et al.  New statistical potential for quality assessment of protein models and a survey of energy functions , 2010, BMC Bioinformatics.

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

[18]  R. Nussinov,et al.  How similar are protein folding and protein binding nuclei? Examination of vibrational motions of energy hot spots and conserved residues. , 2005, Biophysical journal.

[19]  Alessandro Laio,et al.  Native fold and docking pose discrimination by the same residue‐based scoring function , 2015, Proteins.

[20]  John J. Irwin,et al.  ZINC 15 – Ligand Discovery for Everyone , 2015, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[21]  M. Karplus,et al.  Discrimination of the native from misfolded protein models with an energy function including implicit solvation. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  W. C. Still,et al.  Approximate atomic surfaces from linear combinations of pairwise overlaps (LCPO) , 1999 .

[23]  A. Sali,et al.  Statistical potentials for fold assessment , 2009 .

[24]  Christopher M Dobson,et al.  From Computer Simulations to Human Disease Emerging Themes in Protein Folding , 1999, Cell.

[25]  Mieczyslaw Torchala,et al.  The scoring of poses in protein-protein docking: current capabilities and future directions , 2013, BMC Bioinformatics.

[26]  Luhua Lai,et al.  Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[27]  D. Baker,et al.  Improved recognition of native‐like protein structures using a combination of sequence‐dependent and sequence‐independent features of proteins , 1999, Proteins.

[28]  F. Melo,et al.  Assessing protein structures with a non-local atomic interaction energy. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[29]  Steven M Lewis,et al.  Molprobity's ultimate rotamer‐library distributions for model validation , 2016, Proteins.

[30]  Jorge Nocedal,et al.  A Limited Memory Algorithm for Bound Constrained Optimization , 1995, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[31]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[32]  Jin Wang,et al.  Incorporating specificity into optimization: evaluation of SPA using CSAR 2014 and CASF 2013 benchmarks , 2016, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[33]  Kritika Karri,et al.  Identifying enriched drug fragments as possible candidates for metabolic engineering , 2016, BMC Medical Genomics.

[34]  J. Skolnick,et al.  A distance‐dependent atomic knowledge‐based potential for improved protein structure selection , 2001, Proteins.

[35]  Gideon Schreiber,et al.  Similar chemistry, but different bond preferences in inter versus intra‐protein interactions , 2008, Proteins.

[36]  Alessandro Laio,et al.  BACHSCORE. A tool for evaluating efficiently and reliably the quality of large sets of protein structures , 2013, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[37]  Vincent Le Guilloux,et al.  Fpocket: An open source platform for ligand pocket detection , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[38]  Masaaki Kotera,et al.  Functional Group and Substructure Searching as a Tool in Metabolomics , 2008, PloS one.

[39]  C. Sanders,et al.  Misfolding of membrane proteins in health and disease: the lady or the tiger? , 2000, Current opinion in structural biology.

[40]  Hongyi Zhou,et al.  Single‐body residue‐level knowledge‐based energy score combined with sequence‐profile and secondary structure information for fold recognition , 2004, Proteins.

[41]  M. Mezei,et al.  Molecular docking: a powerful approach for structure-based drug discovery. , 2011, Current computer-aided drug design.

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

[43]  Zhiqiang Yan,et al.  Optimizing the affinity and specificity of ligand binding with the inclusion of solvation effect , 2015, Proteins.

[44]  R. Jernigan,et al.  Estimation of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: quasi-chemical approximation , 1985 .

[45]  Transient tertiary structures in tau, an intrinsically disordered protein , 2013 .

[46]  A. Laio,et al.  Protein–protein structure prediction by scoring molecular dynamics trajectories of putative poses , 2016, Proteins.

[47]  R. Dror,et al.  How Fast-Folding Proteins Fold , 2011, Science.

[48]  Pascal Benkert,et al.  QMEAN: A comprehensive scoring function for model quality assessment , 2008, Proteins.