Assessment of programs for ligand binding affinity prediction

The prediction of the binding free energy between a ligand and a protein is an important component in the virtual screening and lead optimization of ligands for drug discovery. To determine the quality of current binding free energy estimation programs, we examined FlexX, X‐Score, AutoDock, and BLEEP for their performance in binding free energy prediction in various situations including cocrystallized complex structures, cross docking of ligands to their non‐cocrystallized receptors, docking of thermally unfolded receptor decoys to their ligands, and complex structures with “randomized” ligand decoys. In no case was there a satisfactory correlation between the experimental and estimated binding free energies over all the datasets tested. Meanwhile, a strong correlation between ligand molecular weight‐binding affinity correlation and experimental predicted binding affinity correlation was found. Sometimes the programs also correctly ranked ligands' binding affinities even though native interactions between the ligands and their receptors were essentially lost because of receptor deformation or ligand randomization, and the programs could not decisively discriminate randomized ligand decoys from their native ligands; this suggested that the tested programs miss important components for the accurate capture of specific ligand binding interactions. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem, 2008

[1]  R D Klausner,et al.  The mammalian gene collection. , 1999, Science.

[2]  E. Shakhnovich,et al.  SMall Molecule Growth 2001 (SMoG2001): an improved knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[4]  J. Skolnick,et al.  TM-align: a protein structure alignment algorithm based on the TM-score , 2005, Nucleic acids research.

[5]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Docking into knowledge-based potential fields: a comparative evaluation of DrugScore. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[7]  Y. Martin,et al.  A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  Colin N. Dewey,et al.  Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. , 2002 .

[9]  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..

[10]  Ceslovas Venclovas,et al.  Progress over the first decade of CASP experiments , 2005, Proteins.

[11]  Renxiao Wang,et al.  Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[13]  Janet M. Thornton,et al.  BLEEP—potential of mean force describing protein–ligand interactions: I. Generating potential , 1999 .

[14]  Stephen M. Mount,et al.  The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster. , 2000, Science.

[15]  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..

[16]  Yang Zhang,et al.  TASSER: An automated method for the prediction of protein tertiary structures in CASP6 , 2005, Proteins.

[17]  Thomas M Frimurer,et al.  Ligand-induced conformational changes: improved predictions of ligand binding conformations and affinities. , 2003, Biophysical journal.

[18]  R. Rosenfeld Nature , 2009, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

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

[20]  T. Halgren Merck molecular force field. I. Basis, form, scope, parameterization, and performance of MMFF94 , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[22]  Johnz Willett Similarity and Clustering in Chemical Information Systems , 1987 .

[23]  G. Klebe,et al.  DrugScore(CSD)-knowledge-based scoring function derived from small molecule crystal data with superior recognition rate of near-native ligand poses and better affinity prediction. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  Gerhard Wagner,et al.  TreeDock: a tool for protein docking based on minimizing van der Waals energies. , 2002, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[25]  A. Ortiz,et al.  Evaluation of docking functions for protein-ligand docking. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[26]  Ram Samudrala,et al.  Rappertk: a versatile engine for discrete restraint-based conformational sampling of macromolecules , 2007, BMC Structural Biology.

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

[28]  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..

[29]  Soumen Chakrabarti,et al.  Similarity and Clustering , 2003 .

[30]  Jinn-Moon Yang,et al.  GEMDOCK: A generic evolutionary method for molecular docking , 2004, Proteins.

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

[32]  M F Sanner,et al.  Python: a programming language for software integration and development. , 1999, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[33]  J. Gasteiger,et al.  ITERATIVE PARTIAL EQUALIZATION OF ORBITAL ELECTRONEGATIVITY – A RAPID ACCESS TO ATOMIC CHARGES , 1980 .

[34]  Maria Kontoyianni,et al.  Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[35]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure , 1994, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[36]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[37]  A. L. Edwards,et al.  An introduction to linear regression and correlation. , 1985 .

[38]  Fabrizio Manetti,et al.  HIV-reverse transcriptase inhibition: inclusion of ligand-induced fit by cross-docking studies. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[39]  G. Klebe,et al.  Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[40]  F. Blattner,et al.  Extensive mosaic structure revealed by the complete genome sequence of uropathogenic Escherichia coli , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[41]  Luhua Lai,et al.  Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[42]  Lloyd S. Nelson,et al.  Analysis of straight-line data , 1959 .

[43]  김삼묘,et al.  “Bioinformatics” 특집을 내면서 , 2000 .

[44]  Brian K Shoichet,et al.  Testing a flexible-receptor docking algorithm in a model binding site. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[45]  J. V. Moran,et al.  Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. , 2001, Nature.

[46]  John B. O. Mitchell,et al.  Protein Ligand Database (PLD): additional understanding of the nature and specificity of protein-ligand complexes , 2003, Bioinform..

[47]  D. J. Price,et al.  Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[48]  Eckart Bindewald,et al.  A scoring function for docking ligands to low‐resolution protein structures , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[49]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  An Extensive Test of 14 Scoring Functions Using the PDBbind Refined Set of 800 Protein-Ligand Complexes , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[50]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Representing receptor flexibility in ligand docking through relevant normal modes. , 2005, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[51]  Yi Li,et al.  Analysis and optimization of structure-based virtual screening protocols. 2. Examination of docked ligand orientation sampling methodology: mapping a pharmacophore for success. , 2003, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

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

[53]  J. Ponder,et al.  An efficient newton‐like method for molecular mechanics energy minimization of large molecules , 1987 .