Using Buriedness To Improve Discrimination between Actives and Inactives in Docking

A continuing problem in protein-ligand docking is the correct relative ranking of active molecules versus inactives. Using the ChemScore scoring function as implemented in the GOLD docking software, we have investigated the effect of scaling hydrogen bond, metal-ligand, and lipophilic interactions based on the buriedness of the interaction. Buriedness was measured using the receptor density, the number of protein heavy atoms within 8.0 A. Terms in the scaling functions were optimized using negative data, represented by docked poses of inactive molecules. The objective function was the mean rank of the scores of the active poses in the Astex Diverse Set (Hartshorn et al. J. Med. Chem., 2007, 50, 726) with respect to the docked poses of 99 inactives. The final four-parameter model gave a substantial improvement in the average rank from 18.6 to 12.5. Similar results were obtained for an independent test set. Receptor density scaling is available as an option in the recent GOLD release.

[1]  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..

[2]  N. Foloppe,et al.  Towards predictive ligand design with free-energy based computational methods? , 2006, Current medicinal chemistry.

[3]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Parameter estimation for scoring protein-ligand interactions using negative training data. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[4]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Scoring functions for protein-ligand docking. , 2006, Current protein & peptide science.

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

[6]  Richard D. Taylor,et al.  Virtual Screening Using Protein—Ligand Docking: Avoiding Artificial Enrichment. , 2004 .

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

[8]  Gergana Dimitrova,et al.  A Stepwise Approach for Defining the Applicability Domain of SAR and QSAR Models , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[9]  Daniel A. Gschwend,et al.  Analysis and optimization of structure-based virtual screening protocols. (3). New methods and old problems in scoring function design. , 2003, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[10]  D. E. Clark,et al.  Flexible docking using tabu search and an empirical estimate of binding affinity , 1998, Proteins.

[11]  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..

[12]  Richard D. Taylor,et al.  Improved protein–ligand docking using GOLD , 2003, Proteins.

[13]  Jaroslav Koca,et al.  CAVER: a new tool to explore routes from protein clefts, pockets and cavities , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[14]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Comparison of Automatic Three-Dimensional Model Builders Using 639 X-ray Structures , 1994, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[15]  Martin Stahl,et al.  Scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions: a critical perspective. , 2004, Drug discovery today. Technologies.

[16]  Ajay N. Jain.  Scoring noncovalent protein-ligand interactions: A continuous differentiable function tuned to compute binding affinities , 1996, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[18]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Decoys for docking. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[19]  Eric Jones,et al.  SciPy: Open Source Scientific Tools for Python , 2001 .

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

[21]  Gerta Rücker,et al.  y-Randomization and Its Variants in QSPR/QSAR , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[22]  Martin Stahl,et al.  Modifications of the scoring function in FlexX for virtual screening applications , 2000 .

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

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

[25]  K. Sharp,et al.  Travel depth, a new shape descriptor for macromolecules: application to ligand binding. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[26]  A. Leach,et al.  Prediction of Protein—Ligand Interactions. Docking and Scoring: Successes and Gaps , 2006 .