DINC: A new AutoDock-based protocol for docking large ligands

BackgroundUsing the popular program AutoDock, computer-aided docking of small ligands with 6 or fewer rotatable bonds, is reasonably fast and accurate. However, docking large ligands using AutoDock's recommended standard docking protocol is less accurate and computationally slow.ResultsIn our earlier work, we presented a novel AutoDock-based incremental protocol (DINC) that addresses the limitations of AutoDock's standard protocol by enabling improved docking of large ligands. Instead of docking a large ligand to a target protein in one single step as done in the standard protocol, our protocol docks the large ligand in increments. In this paper, we present three detailed examples of docking using DINC and compare the docking results with those obtained using AutoDock's standard protocol. We summarize the docking results from an extended docking study that was done on 73 protein-ligand complexes comprised of large ligands. We demonstrate not only that DINC is up to 2 orders of magnitude faster than AutoDock's standard protocol, but that it also achieves the speed-up without sacrificing docking accuracy. We also show that positional restraints can be applied to the large ligand using DINC: this is useful when computing a docked conformation of the ligand. Finally, we introduce a webserver for docking large ligands using DINC.ConclusionsDocking large ligands using DINC is significantly faster than AutoDock's standard protocol without any loss of accuracy. Therefore, DINC could be used as an alternative protocol for docking large ligands. DINC has been implemented as a webserver and is available at http://dinc.kavrakilab.org. Applications such as therapeutic drug design, rational vaccine design, and others involving large ligands could benefit from DINC and its webserver implementation.

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

[2]  T L Blundell,et al.  X-ray studies of aspartic proteinase-statine inhibitor complexes. , 1991, Biochemistry.

[3]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  The computer program LUDI: A new method for the de novo design of enzyme inhibitors , 1992, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[5]  M Karplus,et al.  HOOK: A program for finding novel molecular architectures that satisfy the chemical and steric requirements of a macromolecule binding site , 1994, Proteins.

[6]  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..

[7]  Regine Bohacek,et al.  Multiple Highly Diverse Structures Complementary to Enzyme Binding Sites: Results of Extensive Application of a de Novo Design Method Incorporating Combinatorial Growth , 1994 .

[8]  R. Glen,et al.  Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[10]  S. Becker,et al.  Three-dimensional structure of the Stat3β homodimer bound to DNA , 1998, Nature.

[11]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function , 1998, J. Comput. Chem..

[12]  Y. Moriwaki,et al.  Enzymes involved in purine metabolism--a review of histochemical localization and functional implications. , 1999, Histology and histopathology.

[13]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Flexible ligand docking: A multistep strategy approach , 1999, Proteins.

[14]  Lydia E. Kavraki,et al.  Computational Approaches to Drug Design , 1999, Algorithmica.

[15]  Bernd Groner,et al.  TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR STAT3B/DNA COMPLEX , 1999 .

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

[17]  Ajay N. Jain.  Morphological similarity: A 3D molecular similarity method correlated with protein-ligand recognition , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[18]  Roy Garcia,et al.  STATs in oncogenesis , 2000, Oncogene.

[19]  Lydia E. Kavraki,et al.  Molecular docking: a problem with thousands of degrees of freedom , 2001, Proceedings 2001 ICRA. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.01CH37164).

[20]  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..

[21]  D. van der Spoel,et al.  Efficient docking of peptides to proteins without prior knowledge of the binding site , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[22]  J. Berg,et al.  Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules , 2002, Nature Structural Biology.

[23]  Jacek M. Zurada,et al.  Extraction of rules from artificial neural networks for nonlinear regression , 2002, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[24]  J. Hardy,et al.  The Amyloid Hypothesis of Alzheimer ’ s Disease : Progress and Problems on the Road to Therapeutics , 2009 .

[25]  Richard M. Jackson,et al.  Q-fit: A probabilistic method for docking molecular fragments by sampling low energy conformational space , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[26]  A. Sette,et al.  Epitope-based vaccines: an update on epitope identification, vaccine design and delivery. , 2003, Current opinion in immunology.

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

[28]  A. Anderson.  The process of structure-based drug design. , 2003, Chemistry & biology.

[29]  Lydia E. Kavraki,et al.  Understanding Protein Flexibility through Dimensionality Reduction , 2003, J. Comput. Biol..

[30]  S. Wodak,et al.  Assessment of blind predictions of protein–protein interactions: Current status of docking methods , 2003, Proteins.

[31]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  A tutorial on support vector regression , 2004, Stat. Comput..

[32]  Takayoshi Kinoshita,et al.  A highly potent non-nucleoside adenosine deaminase inhibitor: efficient drug discovery by intentional lead hybridization. , 2004, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[33]  Shoba Ranganathan,et al.  Modeling the structure of bound peptide ligands to major histocompatibility complex , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[34]  R. Vassar.  BACE1: the beta-secretase enzyme in Alzheimer's disease. , 2004, Journal of molecular neuroscience : MN.

[35]  Hua Yu,et al.  The STATs of cancer — new molecular targets come of age , 2004, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[36]  Takayoshi Kinoshita,et al.  A highly potent non-nucleoside adenosine deaminase inhibitor: efficient drug discovery by intentional lead hybridization. , 2004 .

[37]  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.

[38]  J. Ménard,et al.  Aliskiren, a novel, orally effective renin inhibitor, lowers blood pressure in marmosets and spontaneously hypertensive rats , 2005, Journal of hypertension.

[39]  Harel Weinstein,et al.  A flexible docking procedure for the exploration of peptide binding selectivity to known structures and homology models of PDZ domains. , 2005, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[40]  Renxiao Wang,et al.  The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[41]  Arlin G. Cameron,et al.  Investigation of the binding determinants of phosphopeptides targeted to the SRC homology 2 domain of the signal transducer and activator of transcription 3. Development of a high-affinity peptide inhibitor. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[42]  Jian Sun,et al.  Aminoethylenes: a tetrahedral intermediate isostere yielding potent inhibitors of the aspartyl protease BACE-1. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[43]  David Baker,et al.  Recapitulation and design of protein binding peptide structures and sequences. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[44]  V. Apostolopoulos,et al.  Design of peptide-based vaccines for cancer. , 2006, Current medicinal chemistry.

[45]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  DynaPred: A structure and sequence based method for the prediction of MHC class I binding peptide sequences and conformations , 2006, ISMB.

[46]  R. Vassar.  Bace 1 , 2007, Journal of Molecular Neuroscience.

[47]  Reiji Teramoto,et al.  Supervised Consensus Scoring for Docking and Virtual Screening , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[48]  David Lagorce,et al.  MS-DOCK: Accurate multiple conformation generator and rigid docking protocol for multi-step virtual ligand screening , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[49]  Jean-Claude Latombe,et al.  Efficient Algorithms to Explore Conformation Spaces of Flexible Protein Loops , 2007, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics.

[50]  Jean-Claude Latombe,et al.  Efficient Algorithms to Explore Conformation Spaces of Flexible Protein Loops , 2008, TCBB.

[51]  J. McMurray.  Structural basis for the binding of high affinity phosphopeptides to Stat3 , 2008, Biopolymers.

[52]  Pál Pacher,et al.  Adenosine receptors: therapeutic aspects for inflammatory and immune diseases , 2006, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[53]  J. Briggs,et al.  Conformationally constrained peptidomimetic inhibitors of signal transducer and activator of transcription. 3: Evaluation and molecular modeling. , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[54]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, 2nd Edition , 2001, Springer Series in Statistics.

[55]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[56]  A. Beck‐Sickinger,et al.  Peptide drugs to target G protein-coupled receptors. , 2010, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[57]  Iris Antes,et al.  DynaDock: A new molecular dynamics‐based algorithm for protein–peptide docking including receptor flexibility , 2010, Proteins.

[58]  Burak Erman,et al.  VitAL: Viterbi Algorithm for de novo Peptide Design , 2010, PloS one.

[59]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Virtual screening: an endless staircase? , 2010, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[60]  M. Khrestchatisky,et al.  Synthetic therapeutic peptides: science and market. , 2010, Drug discovery today.

[61]  Arthur J. Olson,et al.  AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[62]  Shoba Ranganathan,et al.  pDOCK: a new technique for rapid and accurate docking of peptide ligands to Major Histocompatibility Complexes , 2010, Immunome research.

[63]  Nir London,et al.  Rosetta FlexPepDock ab-initio: Simultaneous Folding, Docking and Refinement of Peptides onto Their Receptors , 2011, PloS one.

[64]  C. Verma,et al.  C-Terminal Substitution of MDM2 Interacting Peptides Modulates Binding Affinity by Distinctive Mechanisms , 2011, PloS one.

[65]  Dariusz Plewczynski,et al.  VoteDock: Consensus docking method for prediction of protein–ligand interactions , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[66]  Dariusz Plewczynski,et al.  Can we trust docking results? Evaluation of seven commonly used programs on PDBbind database , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[67]  R. Bast,et al.  Potent and selective phosphopeptide mimetic prodrugs targeted to the Src homology 2 (SH2) domain of signal transducer and activator of transcription 3. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[68]  L. Kavraki,et al.  Binding Modes of Peptidomimetics Designed to Inhibit STAT3 , 2012, PloS one.

[69]  Lydia E. Kavraki,et al.  Auto dock-based incremental docking protocol to improve docking of large ligands , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine Workshops.

[70]  Lydia E. Kavraki,et al.  Protein–Ligand Interactions: Computational Docking , 2012 .

[71]  Joost Schymkowitz,et al.  Protein-peptide complex prediction through fragment interaction patterns. , 2013, Structure.