Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: Considering protein structural variations in molecular docking

One approach to incorporate protein flexibility in molecular docking is the use of an ensemble consisting of multiple protein structures. Sequentially docking each ligand into a large number of protein structures is computationally too expensive to allow large‐scale database screening. It is challenging to achieve a good balance between docking accuracy and computational efficiency. In this work, we have developed a fast, novel docking algorithm utilizing multiple protein structures, referred to as ensemble docking, to account for protein structural variations. The algorithm can simultaneously dock a ligand into an ensemble of protein structures and automatically select an optimal protein structure that best fits the ligand by optimizing both ligand coordinates and the conformational variable m, where m represents the m‐th structure in the protein ensemble. The docking algorithm was validated on 10 protein ensembles containing 105 crystal structures and 87 ligands in terms of binding mode and energy score predictions. A success rate of 93% was obtained with the criterion of root‐mean‐square deviation <2.5 Å if the top five orientations for each ligand were considered, comparable to that of sequential docking in which scores for individual docking are merged into one list by re‐ranking, and significantly better than that of single rigid‐receptor docking (75% on average). Similar trends were also observed in binding score predictions and enrichment tests of virtual database screening. The ensemble docking algorithm is computationally efficient, with a computational time comparable to that for docking a ligand into a single protein structure. In contrast, the computational time for the sequential docking method increases linearly with the number of protein structures in the ensemble. The algorithm was further evaluated using a more realistic ensemble in which the corresponding bound protein structures of inhibitors were excluded. The results show that ensemble docking successfully predicts the binding modes of the inhibitors, and discriminates the inhibitors from a set of noninhibitors with similar chemical properties. Although multiple experimental structures were used in the present work, our algorithm can be easily applied to multiple protein conformations generated by computational methods, and helps improve the efficiency of other existing multiple protein structure(MPS)‐based methods to accommodate protein flexibility. Proteins 2007. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[2]  A. di Nola,et al.  Docking of flexible ligands to flexible receptors in solution by molecular dynamics simulation , 1999, Proteins.

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

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

[5]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Soft docking and multiple receptor conformations in virtual screening. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[7]  I Lasters,et al.  Computation of the binding of fully flexible peptides to proteins with flexible side chains , 1997, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

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

[9]  Leslie A Kuhn,et al.  Modeling correlated main‐chain motions in proteins for flexible molecular recognition , 2004, Proteins.

[10]  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..

[11]  Brian K Shoichet,et al.  Testing a flexible-receptor docking algorithm in a model binding site. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[12]  Heather A Carlson,et al.  Protein flexibility is an important component of structure-based drug discovery. , 2002, Current pharmaceutical design.

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

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

[15]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  A Method for Biomolecular Structural Recognition and Docking Allowing Conformational Flexibility , 1998, J. Comput. Biol..

[16]  Thomas M Frimurer,et al.  Ligand-induced conformational changes: improved predictions of ligand binding conformations and affinities. , 2003, Biophysical journal.

[17]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  ICM—A new method for protein modeling and design: Applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation , 1994, J. Comput. Chem..

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

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

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

[21]  J. Hermans,et al.  A different best rigid-body molecular fit routine , 1977 .

[22]  Gennady M Verkhivker,et al.  Predicting structural effects in HIV‐1 protease mutant complexes with flexible ligand docking and protein side‐chain optimization , 1998, Proteins.

[23]  Natasja Brooijmans,et al.  Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. , 2003, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[24]  R. Friesner,et al.  Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[25]  D. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking to multiple target structures: Incorporation of protein mobility and structural water heterogeneity in AutoDock , 2002, Proteins.

[26]  Amedeo Caflisch,et al.  Docking small ligands in flexible binding sites , 1998, J. Comput. Chem..

[27]  S. Kim,et al.  "Soft docking": matching of molecular surface cubes. , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[28]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Using CONCORD to construct a large database of three-dimensional coordinates from connection tables , 1989, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[29]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions , 2002, Proteins.

[30]  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.

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

[32]  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.

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

[34]  Heather A Carlson,et al.  Incorporating protein flexibility in structure-based drug discovery: using HIV-1 protease as a test case. , 2004, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[35]  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..

[36]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Molecular docking to ensembles of protein structures. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[38]  H. Broughton,et al.  A method for including protein flexibility in protein-ligand docking: improving tools for database mining and virtual screening. , 2000, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

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

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

[41]  Jung-Hsin Lin,et al.  The relaxed complex method: Accommodating receptor flexibility for drug design with an improved scoring scheme. , 2003, Biopolymers.

[42]  J. Mccammon,et al.  Computational drug design accommodating receptor flexibility: the relaxed complex scheme. , 2002, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[43]  F. Bushman,et al.  Developing a dynamic pharmacophore model for HIV-1 integrase. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[44]  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..

[45]  P. Hajduk,et al.  Evaluation of PMF scoring in docking weak ligands to the FK506 binding protein. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[46]  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..

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