Modelling substrate specificity and enantioselectivity for lipases and esterases by substrate-imprinted docking

BackgroundPreviously, ways to adapt docking programs that were developed for modelling inhibitor-receptor interaction have been explored. Two main issues were discussed. First, when trying to model catalysis a reaction intermediate of the substrate is expected to provide more valid information than the ground state of the substrate. Second, the incorporation of protein flexibility is essential for reliable predictions.ResultsHere we present a predictive and robust method to model substrate specificity and enantioselectivity of lipases and esterases that uses reaction intermediates and incorporates protein flexibility. Substrate-imprinted docking starts with covalent docking of reaction intermediates, followed by geometry optimisation of the resulting enzyme-substrate complex. After a second round of docking the same substrate into the geometry-optimised structures, productive poses are identified by geometric filter criteria and ranked by their docking scores. Substrate-imprinted docking was applied in order to model (i) enantioselectivity of Candida antarctica lipase B and a W104A mutant, (ii) enantioselectivity and substrate specificity of Candida rugosa lipase and Burkholderia cepacia lipase, and (iii) substrate specificity of an acetyl- and a butyrylcholine esterase toward the substrates acetyl- and butyrylcholine.ConclusionThe experimentally observed differences in selectivity and specificity of the enzymes were reproduced with an accuracy of 81%. The method was robust toward small differences in initial structures (different crystallisation conditions or a co-crystallised ligand), although large displacements of catalytic residues often resulted in substrate poses that did not pass the geometric filter criteria.

[1]  L. Norskov,et al.  A serine protease triad forms the catalytic centre of a triacylglycerol lipase , 1990, Nature.

[2]  P. Kollman,et al.  A well-behaved electrostatic potential-based method using charge restraints for deriving atomic char , 1993 .

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

[4]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Ligand docking and structure-based virtual screening in drug discovery. , 2007, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[5]  Johannes C. Hermann,et al.  Structure-based activity prediction for an enzyme of unknown function , 2007, Nature.

[6]  P. Kollman,et al.  Atomic charges derived from semiempirical methods , 1990 .

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

[8]  Angelo D. Favia,et al.  Molecular docking for substrate identification: the short-chain dehydrogenases/reductases. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[9]  Lars Olsen,et al.  Transition-State Docking of Flunitrazepam and Progesterone in Cytochrome P450. , 2008, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[10]  J. Sussman,et al.  Reaction Products of Acetylcholinesterase and VX Reveal a Mobile Histidine in the Catalytic Triad , 1999 .

[11]  J. Schrag,et al.  Analogs of reaction intermediates identify a unique substrate binding site in Candida rugosa lipase. , 1995, Biochemistry.

[12]  E. Hedenström,et al.  Do enzymes recognise remotely located stereocentres? Highly enantioselective Candida rugosa lipase-catalysed esterification of the 2- to 8-methyldecanoic acids , 2002 .

[13]  J. Heijnen,et al.  Solvent effect on lipase enantioselectivity. Evidence for the presence of two thermodynamic states. , 2000, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[14]  John J Irwin,et al.  Virtual screening against metalloenzymes for inhibitors and substrates. , 2005, Biochemistry.

[15]  J. Ottosson,et al.  Size as a parameter for solvent effects on Candida antarctica lipase B enantioselectivity. , 2002, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[16]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  Target flexibility: an emerging consideration in drug discovery and design. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[18]  A. Warshel,et al.  Computer simulations of enzyme catalysis: finding out what has been optimized by evolution. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  M. Jacobson,et al.  Virtual screening against highly charged active sites: identifying substrates of alpha-beta barrel enzymes. , 2005, Biochemistry.

[20]  Remo Rohs,et al.  Molecular flexibility in ab initio drug docking to DNA: binding-site and binding-mode transitions in all-atom Monte Carlo simulations , 2005, Nucleic acids research.

[21]  Yvain Nicolet,et al.  Crystal Structure of Human Butyrylcholinesterase and of Its Complexes with Substrate and Products* , 2003, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[22]  Yuji Saito,et al.  Ester synthesis from α-substituted carboxylic acid catalyzed by polyethylene glycol-modified lipase fromCandidacylindracea in benzene , 1986, Biotechnology Letters.

[23]  T. Blundell,et al.  Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[24]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure , 1994, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[25]  Janet M Thornton,et al.  Ligand selectivity and competition between enzymes in silico , 2004, Nature Biotechnology.

[26]  Andrej Sali,et al.  Comparative Protein Structure Modeling and its Applications to Drug Discovery , 2004 .

[27]  T. Panda,et al.  Production and applications of esterases , 2005, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology.

[28]  A. D. McLachlan,et al.  Rapid comparison of protein structures , 1982 .

[29]  P. Kollman,et al.  An approach to computing electrostatic charges for molecules , 1984 .

[30]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Evaluation of the FLEXX incremental construction algorithm for protein–ligand docking , 1999, Proteins.

[31]  Pierre Tufféry,et al.  PCE: web tools to compute protein continuum electrostatics , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[33]  P. Argos,et al.  Strain in protein structures as viewed through nonrotameric side chains: II. effects upon ligand binding , 1999, Proteins.

[34]  A. Elcock,et al.  Rapid computational identification of the targets of protein kinase inhibitors. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[35]  Davis,et al.  Carbohydrate Recognition through Noncovalent Interactions: A Challenge for Biomimetic and Supramolecular Chemistry. , 1999, Angewandte Chemie.

[36]  M. Sternberg,et al.  Modelling protein docking using shape complementarity, electrostatics and biochemical information. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[37]  R. Verger,et al.  Lipases: Interfacial Enzymes with Attractive Applications. , 1998, Angewandte Chemie.

[38]  N. Guex,et al.  SWISS‐MODEL and the Swiss‐Pdb Viewer: An environment for comparative protein modeling , 1997, Electrophoresis.

[39]  F. Winkler,et al.  Structure of human pancreatic lipase , 1990, Nature.

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

[41]  P. Julius Zu August Bernthsens 70. Geburtstag , 1925 .

[42]  Juergen Pleiss,et al.  Biochemical profiling in silico--predicting substrate specificities of large enzyme families. , 2006, Journal of biotechnology.

[43]  Heidi J. Imker,et al.  Prediction and assignment of function for a divergent N-succinyl amino acid racemase. , 2007, Nature chemical biology.

[44]  R D Schmid,et al.  Stereoselectivity of Pseudomonas cepacia lipase toward secondary alcohols: A quantitative model , 2000, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[45]  N. P. Todorov,et al.  Receptor flexibility in de novo ligand design and docking. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[46]  R Nussinov,et al.  Flexible docking allowing induced fit in proteins: Insights from an open to closed conformational isomers , 1998, Proteins.

[47]  H. Hellinga,et al.  Structural reorganization and preorganization in enzyme active sites: comparisons of experimental and theoretically ideal active site geometries in the multistep serine esterase reaction cycle. , 2008, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[48]  Leslie A Kuhn,et al.  Side‐chain flexibility in protein–ligand binding: The minimal rotation hypothesis , 2005, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[49]  Marcin Król,et al.  Flexible relaxation of rigid‐body docking solutions , 2007, Proteins.

[50]  John J Irwin,et al.  Predicting substrates by docking high-energy intermediates to enzyme structures. , 2006, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[51]  W. L. Jorgensen,et al.  Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water , 1983 .

[52]  Karl Hult,et al.  Substrate entropy in enzyme enantioselectivity: An experimental and molecular modeling study of a lipase , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[53]  Marc A. Martí-Renom,et al.  MODBASE: a database of annotated comparative protein structure models and associated resources , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[54]  Alejandra Leo-Macias,et al.  Computational approaches to model ligand selectivity in drug design. , 2006, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[55]  A. Davis,et al.  Hydrogen Bonding, Hydrophobic Interactions, and Failure of the Rigid Receptor Hypothesis. , 1999, Angewandte Chemie.

[56]  K. Hult,et al.  An S-selective lipase was created by rational redesign and the enantioselectivity increased with temperature. , 2005, Angewandte Chemie.

[57]  A. Leach,et al.  Ligand docking to proteins with discrete side-chain flexibility. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[58]  N. Itoh,et al.  Optical resolution of racemic 2-hydroxy octanoic acid using biphasic enzyme membrane reactor , 2002 .

[59]  Richard A. Lewis,et al.  Lessons in molecular recognition: the effects of ligand and protein flexibility on molecular docking accuracy. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[60]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[61]  P. Kollman,et al.  A Second Generation Force Field for the Simulation of Proteins, Nucleic Acids, and Organic Molecules , 1995 .

[62]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Fully Automated Flexible Docking of Ligands into Flexible Synthetic Receptors Using Forward and Inverse Docking Strategies , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[63]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Information decay in molecular docking screens against holo, apo, and modeled conformations of enzymes. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[64]  Christopher W. Murray,et al.  The sensitivity of the results of molecular docking to induced fit effects: Application to thrombin, thermolysin and neuraminidase , 1999, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[65]  S. Petersen,et al.  Surface and electrostatics of cutinases. , 1997, Methods in enzymology.