The interprotein scoring noises in glide docking scores

Small molecule drugs are rarely selective enough to interact solely with their designated targets. Unintended “off‐target” interactions often lead to side effects, but also serendipitously lead to new therapeutic uses. Identification of the off‐targets of a compound is therefore of significant value to the evaluation of its developmental potential. In computational biology, the strategy of “reverse docking” has been introduced to predict the targets of a compound, which uses a compound to virtually screen a library of proteins, reversing the bait and prey in “normal” docking screenings. The present study shows that, in reverse docking, additional optimization of the scoring function may help to improve the target prediction accuracy. In a case study with the Glide scores, we found that only 57% of the ligand–protein relationships could be correctly identified in a library of 58 complexes whose crystal binding conformations were all able to be accurately reproduced. This was likely a result of the constant over‐ or under‐estimation of the scores for specific proteins. In other words, there were interprotein noises in the Glide scores. Introducing a correction term based on protein characteristics improved the target‐prediction accuracy by 27% (57–72%). It is our hope that this focused discussion on the Glide scores would invite further efforts to characterize and normalize this type of interprotein noises in all docking scores, so that better target prediction accuracy can be achieved with the strategy of reverse docking. Proteins 2012; © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  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..

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

[3]  Darren R. Flower,et al.  On the Properties of Bit String-Based Measures of Chemical Similarity , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[4]  J Henkel,et al.  Attacking AIDS with a 'cocktail' therapy? , 1999, FDA consumer.

[5]  Dana Ron,et al.  Algorithmic Stability and Sanity-Check Bounds for Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation , 1997, Neural Computation.

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

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

[8]  J. Drews Drug discovery: a historical perspective. , 2000, Science.

[9]  Byron L. Lam,et al.  Acute effects of sildenafil (viagra) on blue-on-yellow and white-on-white Humphrey perimetry. , 2001 .

[10]  Y. Z. Chen,et al.  Prediction of potential toxicity and side effect protein targets of a small molecule by a ligand-protein inverse docking approach. , 2001, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[11]  Yuan-Ping Pang,et al.  EUDOC: a computer program for identification of drug interaction sites in macromolecules and drug leads from chemical databases , 2001, J. Comput. Chem..

[12]  R. Friesner,et al.  Evaluation and Reparametrization of the OPLS-AA Force Field for Proteins via Comparison with Accurate Quantum Chemical Calculations on Peptides† , 2001 .

[13]  Robin Taylor,et al.  A new test set for validating predictions of protein–ligand interaction , 2002, Proteins.

[14]  Marcel L. Verdonk,et al.  The consequences of translational and rotational entropy lost by small molecules on binding to proteins , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[15]  Didier Rognan,et al.  ConsDock: A new program for the consensus analysis of protein–ligand interactions , 2002, Proteins.

[16]  C. Ung,et al.  Can an in silico drug-target search method be used to probe potential mechanisms of medicinal plant ingredients? , 2003, Natural product reports.

[17]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  Consideration of Molecular Weight during Compound Selection in Virtual Target-Based Database Screening , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[18]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Relibase: design and development of a database for comprehensive analysis of protein-ligand interactions. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[19]  J. Lehár,et al.  Systematic discovery of multicomponent therapeutics , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  Tianhan Xue,et al.  Studying Traditional Chinese Medicine , 2003, Science.

[21]  Innovation OR Stagnation Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products , 2004 .

[22]  Shiladitya Sengupta,et al.  Modulating Angiogenesis: The Yin and the Yang in Ginseng , 2004, Circulation.

[23]  Hege S. Beard,et al.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  Renxiao Wang,et al.  The PDBbind database: collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[25]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[26]  N. Paul,et al.  Recovering the true targets of specific ligands by virtual screening of the protein data bank , 2004, Proteins.

[27]  Ayalew Tefferi,et al.  Imatinib targets other than bcr/abl and their clinical relevance in myeloid disorders. , 2004, Blood.

[28]  Matthew P. Repasky,et al.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[29]  B. Roux,et al.  Calculation of absolute protein-ligand binding free energy from computer simulations. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  Joanna Owens Screening: Dirty drugs' secrets uncovered , 2006, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[31]  Fujio Kasumi,et al.  Efficacy and safety of combined trastuzumab and paclitaxel therapy as a second-line treatment in women with metastatic Breast Cancer: A single institutional experience , 2006, Breast cancer.

[32]  Egon L. Willighagen,et al.  The Blue Obelisk—Interoperability in Chemical Informatics , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[33]  John P. Overington,et al.  How many drug targets are there? , 2006, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[34]  Didier Rognan,et al.  sc-PDB: an Annotated Database of Druggable Binding Sites from the Protein Data Bank , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[35]  Didier Rognan,et al.  In silico-guided target identification of a scaffold-focused library: 1,3,5-triazepan-2,6-diones as novel phospholipase A2 inhibitors. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[36]  Matthew P. Repasky,et al.  Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[37]  Jian Zhang,et al.  Peptide deformylase is a potential target for anti‐Helicobacter pylori drugs: Reverse docking, enzymatic assay, and X‐ray crystallography validation , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[38]  Kenichi Sugihara,et al.  Effect of Combined Therapy With Low-Dose 5-Aza-2′-Deoxycytidine and Irinotecan on Colon Cancer Cell Line HCT-15 , 2007, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[39]  Jin Li,et al.  On Evaluating Molecular-Docking Methods for Pose Prediction and Enrichment Factors , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[40]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Development and virtual screening of target libraries , 2006, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[41]  J. Lamerdin,et al.  Identifying off-target effects and hidden phenotypes of drugs in human cells , 2006, Nature chemical biology.

[42]  C. E. Peishoff,et al.  A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[43]  Xiaomin Luo,et al.  TarFisDock: a web server for identifying drug targets with docking approach , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[44]  Anders Karlén,et al.  Ligand Bias of Scoring Functions in Structure-Based Virtual Screening , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[45]  Xin Wen,et al.  BindingDB: a web-accessible database of experimentally determined protein–ligand binding affinities , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[46]  L. Meijer,et al.  Inverse in silico screening for identification of kinase inhibitor targets. , 2007, Chemistry & biology.

[47]  M. Gilson,et al.  Calculation of protein-ligand binding affinities. , 2007, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[48]  Tom Halgren,et al.  New Method for Fast and Accurate Binding‐site Identification and Analysis , 2007, Chemical biology & drug design.

[49]  David G. Lloyd,et al.  Unbiasing Scoring Functions: A New Normalization and Rescoring Strategy , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[50]  M. Gilson,et al.  Ligand configurational entropy and protein binding , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[51]  Paul N. Mortenson,et al.  Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[52]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Ranking Targets in Structure-Based Virtual Screening of Three-Dimensional Protein Libraries: Methods and Problems , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[53]  石黒 めぐみ,et al.  Effect of combined therapy with low-dose 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine and irinotecan on colon cancer cell line HCT-15 , 2008 .

[54]  Christopher R. Corbeil,et al.  Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go , 2008, British journal of pharmacology.

[55]  Zhihai Liu,et al.  Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on a Diverse Test Set , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[56]  Obdulia Rabal,et al.  APIF: A New Interaction Fingerprint Based on Atom Pairs and Its Application to Virtual Screening , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[57]  Yongbo Hu,et al.  Comparison of Several Molecular Docking Programs: Pose Prediction and Virtual Screening Accuracy , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[58]  Markus H J Seifert,et al.  Targeted scoring functions for virtual screening. , 2009, Drug discovery today.

[59]  Thomas A. Halgren,et al.  Identifying and Characterizing Binding Sites and Assessing Druggability , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[60]  Lin He,et al.  SePreSA: a server for the prediction of populations susceptible to serious adverse drug reactions implementing the methodology of a chemical–protein interactome , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[61]  Zhihai Liu,et al.  Evaluation of the performance of four molecular docking programs on a diverse set of protein‐ligand complexes , 2010, J. Comput. Chem..

[62]  Philippe Chaignon,et al.  NADH oxidase activity of Bacillus subtilis nitroreductase NfrA1: Insight into its biological role , 2010, FEBS letters.

[63]  David B Jackson,et al.  Drug profiling: knowing where it hits. , 2010, Drug discovery today.

[64]  Ian T. Crosby,et al.  Homology Modeling and Docking Evaluation of Aminergic G Protein-Coupled Receptors , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[65]  Weihua Li,et al.  Discovery of potent ligands for estrogen receptor beta by structure-based virtual screening. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.