Rapid protein–ligand docking using soft modes from molecular dynamics simulations to account for protein deformability: Binding of FK506 to FKBP

Most current docking methods to identify possible ligands and putative binding sites on a receptor molecule assume a rigid receptor structure to allow virtual screening of large ligand databases. However, binding of a ligand can lead to changes in the receptor protein conformation that are sterically necessary to accommodate a bound ligand. An approach is presented that allows relaxation of the protein conformation in precalculated soft flexible degrees of freedom during ligand–receptor docking. For the immunosuppressant FK506‐binding protein FKBP, the soft flexible modes are extracted as principal components of motion from a molecular dynamics simulation. A simple penalty function for deformations in the soft flexible mode is used to limit receptor protein deformations during docking that avoids a costly recalculation of the receptor energy by summing over all receptor atom pairs at each step. Rigid docking of the FK506 ligand binding to an unbound FKBP conformation failed to identify a geometry close to experiment as favorable binding site. In contrast, inclusion of the flexible soft modes during systematic docking runs selected a binding geometry close to experiment as lowest energy conformation. This has been achieved at a modest increase of computational cost compared to rigid docking. The approach could provide a computationally efficient way to approximately account for receptor flexibility during docking of large numbers of putative ligands and putative docking geometries. Proteins 2004;54:000–000. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

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

[2]  G. Vriend,et al.  Molecular docking using surface complementarity , 1996, Proteins.

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

[4]  M. Zacharias Comparison of molecular dynamics and harmonic mode calculations on RNA. , 2000, Biopolymers.

[5]  R Abagyan,et al.  Rational discovery of novel nuclear hormone receptor antagonists , 2000, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[6]  Heinz Sklenar,et al.  Harmonic modes as variables to approximately account for receptor flexibility in ligand–receptor docking simulations: Application to DNA minor groove ligand complex , 1999 .

[7]  W. L. Jorgensen,et al.  The OPLS [optimized potentials for liquid simulations] potential functions for proteins, energy minimizations for crystals of cyclic peptides and crambin. , 1988, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[8]  J. Andrew McCammon,et al.  Molecular Dynamics of Acetylcholinesterase Dimer Complexed with Tacrine , 1997 .

[9]  J A McCammon,et al.  Accommodating protein flexibility in computational drug design. , 2000, Molecular pharmacology.

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

[11]  Peter A. Kollman,et al.  AMBER, a package of computer programs for applying molecular mechanics, normal mode analysis, molecular dynamics and free energy calculations to simulate the structural and energetic properties of molecules , 1995 .

[12]  Youngshang Pak,et al.  Application of a Molecular Dynamics Simulation Method with a Generalized Effective Potential to the Flexible Molecular Docking Problems , 2000 .

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

[14]  M Karplus,et al.  Solution structure of FKBP, a rotamase enzyme and receptor for FK506 and rapamycin , 1991, Science.

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

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

[17]  Rafael Najmanovich,et al.  Side‐chain flexibility in proteins upon ligand binding , 2000, Proteins.

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

[19]  R F Standaert,et al.  Atomic structure of FKBP-FK506, an immunophilin-immunosuppressant complex , 1991, Science.

[20]  A. Sali,et al.  Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. , 2000, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[21]  M. Sternberg,et al.  An analysis of conformational changes on protein-protein association: implications for predictive docking. , 1999, Protein engineering.

[22]  H. Berendsen,et al.  Essential dynamics of proteins , 1993, Proteins.

[23]  Heinz Sklenar,et al.  Harmonic modes as variables to approximately account for receptor flexibility in ligand-receptor docking simulations: Application to DNA minor groove ligand complex , 1999, J. Comput. Chem..

[24]  M. Murcko,et al.  Comparative X-ray structures of the major binding protein for the immunosuppressant FK506 (tacrolimus) in unliganded form and in complex with FK506 and rapamycin. , 1995, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

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

[26]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Recent developments in structure-based drug design , 2000, Journal of Molecular Medicine.

[27]  Gennady Verkhivker,et al.  Deciphering common failures in molecular docking of ligand-protein complexes , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

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

[30]  T. Darden,et al.  Particle mesh Ewald: An N⋅log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems , 1993 .

[31]  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..

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

[33]  Robert Soliva,et al.  Molecular Dynamics Studies of DNA A-Tract Structure and Flexibility , 1999 .

[34]  A. R. Srinivasan,et al.  Quasi‐harmonic method for studying very low frequency modes in proteins , 1984, Biopolymers.

[35]  J. Andrew McCammon,et al.  Method for Including the Dynamic Fluctuations of a Protein in Computer-Aided Drug Design , 1999 .

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

[37]  G Klebe,et al.  Docking ligands onto binding site representations derived from proteins built by homology modelling. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[39]  J Andrew McCammon,et al.  Protein flexibility and computer-aided drug design. , 2003, Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology.