Estimating binding affinities by docking/scoring methods using variable protonation states

To investigate the effects of multiple protonation states on protein–ligand recognition, we generated alternative protonation states for selected titratable groups of ligands and receptors. The selection of states was based on the predicted pK a of the unbound receptor and ligand and the proximity of titratable groups of the receptor to the binding site. Various ligand tautomer states were also considered. An independent docking calculation was run for each state. Several protocols were examined: using an ensemble of all generated states of ligand and receptor, using only the most probable state of the unbound ligand/receptor, and using only the state giving the most favorable docking score. The accuracies of these approaches were compared, using a set of 176 protein–ligand complexes (15 receptors) for which crystal structures and measured binding affinities are available. The best agreement with experiment was obtained when ligand poses from experimental crystal structures were used. For 9 of 15 receptors, using an ensemble of all generated protonation states of the ligand and receptor gave the best correlation between calculated and measured affinities. Proteins 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  Milan Meloun,et al.  Benchmarking and validating algorithms that estimate pKa values of drugs based on their molecular structures , 2007, Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry.

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

[3]  Mark A. Murcko,et al.  Virtual screening : an overview , 1998 .

[4]  L. R. Scott,et al.  Electrostatics and diffusion of molecules in solution: simulations with the University of Houston Brownian dynamics program , 1995 .

[5]  Dianqing Wu,et al.  Differential targeting of Gbetagamma-subunit signaling with small molecules. , 2006, Science.

[6]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Tracing changes in protonation: a prerequisite to factorize thermodynamic data of inhibitor binding to aldose reductase. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  Saravanaraj N. Ayyampalayam,et al.  In silico prediction of ionization constants of drugs. , 2007, Molecular pharmaceutics.

[8]  György M. Keserü,et al.  Impact of Ligand Protonation on Virtual Screening against β-Secretase (BACE1) , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[9]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Protonation changes upon ligand binding to trypsin and thrombin: structural interpretation based on pK(a) calculations and ITC experiments. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[10]  Jan H. Jensen,et al.  Protein–protein binding is often associated with changes in protonation state , 2008, Proteins.

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

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

[13]  Steven W. Muchmore,et al.  High-Throughput Calculation of Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities: Modification and Adaptation of the MM-PBSA Protocol to Enterprise Grid Computing , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[14]  Gerrit Groenhof,et al.  Inclusion of ionization states of ligands in affinity calculations , 2009, Proteins.

[15]  Yun He,et al.  A statistical approach to the prediction of pKa values in proteins , 2007, Proteins.

[16]  Emil Alexov,et al.  Calculating the Protonation States of Proteins and Small Molecules: Implications to Ligand-Receptor Interactions , 2008 .

[17]  Antti Poso,et al.  The Effect of Ligand-Based Tautomer and Protomer Prediction on Structure-Based Virtual Screening , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[18]  Søren Brunak,et al.  Prediction of pH-Dependent Aqueous Solubility of Druglike Molecules , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[19]  G Klebe,et al.  Factorising ligand affinity: a combined thermodynamic and crystallographic study of trypsin and thrombin inhibition. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[20]  D. Bashford,et al.  Electrostatic calculations of the pKa values of ionizable groups in bacteriorhodopsin. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[21]  Homme W Hellinga,et al.  An empirical model for electrostatic interactions in proteins incorporating multiple geometry‐dependent dielectric constants , 2003, Proteins.

[22]  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..

[23]  Fang Zheng,et al.  Modeling multiple species of nicotine and deschloroepibatidine interacting with alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor: from microscopic binding to phenomenological binding affinity. , 2005, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

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

[25]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy , 2004, Proteins.

[26]  Ram Samudrala,et al.  A knowledge-based scoring function based on residue triplets for protein structure prediction , 2006, Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS.

[27]  F Guarnieri,et al.  A self-consistent, microenvironment modulated screened coulomb potential approximation to calculate pH-dependent electrostatic effects in proteins. , 1999, Biophysical journal.

[28]  Jeffrey Skolnick,et al.  Assessment of programs for ligand binding affinity prediction , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[29]  Jeremy R. Greenwood,et al.  Epik: a software program for pKa prediction and protonation state generation for drug-like molecules , 2007, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[30]  Jan H. Jensen,et al.  Very fast prediction and rationalization of pKa values for protein–ligand complexes , 2008, Proteins.

[31]  E. Alexov,et al.  Incorporating protein conformational flexibility into the calculation of pH-dependent protein properties. , 1997, Biophysical journal.

[32]  Gerd Folkers,et al.  Tautomerism in Computer‐Aided Drug Design , 2003, Journal of receptor and signal transduction research.

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

[34]  W. L. Jorgensen.  The Many Roles of Computation in Drug Discovery , 2004, Science.

[35]  M. Tanokura.  1H-NMR study on the tautomerism of the imidazole ring of histidine residues. II. Microenvironments of histidine-12 and histidine-119 of bovine pancreatic ribonuclease A. , 1983, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[36]  Jacopo Tomasi,et al.  An attempt to bridge the gap between computation and experiment for nonlinear optical properties: Macroscopic susceptibilities in solution , 2000 .

[37]  Jacopo Tomasi,et al.  On the Calculation of Local Field Factors for Microscopic Static Hyperpolarizabilities of Molecules in Solution with the Aid of Quantum-Mechanical Methods , 1998 .

[38]  Cen Gao,et al.  Accounting for ligand conformational restriction in calculations of protein-ligand binding affinities. , 2010, Biophysical journal.

[39]  Maria Kontoyianni,et al.  Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[41]  D. Kostrewa,et al.  Novel inhibitors of DNA gyrase: 3D structure based biased needle screening, hit validation by biophysical methods, and 3D guided optimization. A promising alternative to random screening. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[42]  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.

[43]  Alan V. Smrcka,et al.  Differential Targeting of Gßγ-Subunit Signaling with Small Molecules , 2006, Science.

[44]  E. Jaeger,et al.  Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. , 2005, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.

[45]  Thomas E. Exner,et al.  Influence of Protonation, Tautomeric, and Stereoisomeric States on Protein-Ligand Docking Results , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[46]  D. Moss,et al.  Benchmarking pKa prediction , 2006, BMC Biochemistry.

[47]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Flexible docking under pharmacophore type constraints , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[48]  G. Vriend,et al.  Optimizing the hydrogen‐bond network in Poisson–Boltzmann equation‐based pKa calculations , 2001, Proteins.

[49]  Jonathan W. Essex,et al.  A review of protein-small molecule docking methods , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[50]  Jan H. Jensen,et al.  Very fast empirical prediction and rationalization of protein pKa values , 2005, Proteins.

[51]  M. Rami Reddy,et al.  Free energy calculations in rational drug design , 2001 .