Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions.

Representing and understanding the three-dimensional (3D) structural information of protein-ligand complexes is a critical step in the rational drug discovery process. Traditional analysis methods are proving inadequate and inefficient in dealing with the massive amount of structural information being generated from X-ray crystallography, NMR, and in silico approaches such as structure-based docking experiments. Here, we present SIFt (structural interaction fingerprint), a novel method for representing and analyzing 3D protein-ligand binding interactions. Key to this approach is the generation of an interaction fingerprint that translates 3D structural binding information from a protein-ligand complex into a one-dimensional binary string. Each fingerprint represents the "structural interaction profile" of the complex that can be used to organize, analyze, and visualize the rich amount of information encoded in ligand-receptor complexes and also to assist database mining. We have applied SIFt to tackle three common tasks in structure-based drug design. The first involved the analysis and organization of a typical set of results generated from a docking study. Using SIFt, docking poses with similar binding modes were identified, clustered, and subsequently compared with conventional scoring function information. A second application of SIFt was to analyze approximately 90 known X-ray crystal structures of protein kinase-inhibitor complexes obtained from the Protein Databank. Using SIFt, we were able to organize the structures and reveal striking similarities and diversity between their small molecule binding interactions. Finally, we have shown how SIFt can be used as an effective molecular filter during the virtual chemical library screening process to select molecules with desirable binding mode(s) and/or desirable interaction patterns with the protein target. In summary, SIFt shows promise to fully leverage the wealth of information being generated in rational drug design.

[1]  P. Smith.  Santa Fe, New Mexico , 1969 .

[2]  B. Lee,et al.  The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. , 1971, Journal of molecular biology.

[3]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Clustering Methodologies in Exploratory Data Analysis , 1980, Adv. Comput..

[4]  S. Hanks,et al.  Protein kinase catalytic domain sequence database: identification of conserved features of primary structure and classification of family members. , 1991, Methods in enzymology.

[5]  Susan S. Taylor,et al.  2.2 A refined crystal structure of the catalytic subunit of cAMP-dependent protein kinase complexed with MnATP and a peptide inhibitor. , 1993, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[6]  Collaborative Computational,et al.  The CCP4 suite: programs for protein crystallography. , 1994, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[7]  Susan S. Taylor,et al.  Three protein kinase structures define a common motif. , 1994, Structure.

[8]  J. Thornton,et al.  Satisfying hydrogen bonding potential in proteins. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[9]  T. Hunter,et al.  The eukaryotic protein kinase superfamily: kinase (catalytic) domain structure and classification 1 , 1995, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[10]  J M Thornton,et al.  LIGPLOT: a program to generate schematic diagrams of protein-ligand interactions. , 1995, Protein engineering.

[11]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  G. V. Paolini,et al.  Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes , 1997, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[13]  P Willett,et al.  Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[14]  P E Bourne,et al.  The protein kinase resource. , 1997, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[15]  John M. Barnard,et al.  Chemical Similarity Searching , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[16]  E. Goldsmith,et al.  Structural basis of inhibitor selectivity in MAP kinases. , 1998, Structure.

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

[18]  J. Adams,et al.  Recent progress towards the identification of selective inhibitors of serine/threonine protein kinases. , 1999, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[19]  M. Murcko,et al.  Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

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

[22]  G. Klebe,et al.  Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[23]  S. Taylor,et al.  Dynamics of cAMP-dependent protein kinase. , 2001, Chemical reviews.

[24]  P. Charifson,et al.  Improved scoring of ligand-protein interactions using OWFEG free energy grids. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[25]  Paul D Lyne,et al.  Structure-based virtual screening: an overview. , 2002, Drug discovery today.

[26]  Harren Jhoti,et al.  High-throughput crystallography for lead discovery in drug design , 2002, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[27]  C. Chuaqui,et al.  Successful shape-Based virtual screening: The discovery of a potent inhibitor of the type I TGFβ receptor kinase (TβRI) , 2003 .