Combined strategies in structure-based virtual screening.

The identification and optimization of lead compounds are inalienable components in drug design and discovery pipelines. As a powerful computational approach for the identification of hits with novel structural scaffolds, structure-based virtual screening (SBVS) has exhibited a remarkably increasing influence in the early stages of drug discovery. During the past decade, a variety of techniques and algorithms have been proposed and tested with different purposes in the scope of SBVS. Although SBVS has been a common and proven technology, it still shows some challenges and problems that are needed to be addressed, where the negative influence regardless of protein flexibility and the inaccurate prediction of binding affinity are the two major challenges. Here, focusing on these difficulties, we summarize a series of combined strategies or workflows developed by our group and others. Furthermore, several representative successful applications from recent publications are also discussed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the combined SBVS strategies in drug discovery campaigns.

[1]  Gabriele Cruciani,et al.  A Common Reference Framework for Analyzing/Comparing Proteins and Ligands. Fingerprints for Ligands And Proteins (FLAP): Theory and Application , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[2]  Youyong Li,et al.  Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 3. The impact of force fields and ligand charge models. , 2013, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[3]  Alessandro Contini,et al.  Explicit Ligand Hydration Shells Improve the Correlation between MM-PB/GBSA Binding Energies and Experimental Activities. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[4]  Cristiano R W Guimarães,et al.  MM-GB/SA rescoring of docking poses. , 2012, Methods in molecular biology.

[5]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Funnels, pathways, and the energy landscape of protein folding: A synthesis , 1994, Proteins.

[6]  Andrea Spitaleri,et al.  BiKi Life Sciences: A New Suite for Molecular Dynamics and Related Methods in Drug Discovery , 2018, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[7]  Francesca Spyrakis,et al.  Discovering New Casein Kinase 1d Inhibitors with an Innovative Molecular Dynamics Enabled Virtual Screening Workflow. , 2018, ACS medicinal chemistry letters.

[8]  D. Koshland Application of a Theory of Enzyme Specificity to Protein Synthesis. , 1958, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Malgorzata N. Drwal,et al.  Combination of ligand- and structure-based methods in virtual screening. , 2013, Drug discovery today. Technologies.

[10]  Andrea Spitaleri,et al.  Fast Dynamic Docking Guided by Adaptive Electrostatic Bias: The MD-Binding Approach. , 2018, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[11]  P A Kollman,et al.  Continuum solvent studies of the stability of RNA hairpin loops and helices. , 1998, Journal of biomolecular structure & dynamics.

[12]  Alan Talevi,et al.  Combined Virtual Screening Strategies , 2009 .

[13]  Youyong Li,et al.  Discovery of novel inhibitors targeting the macrophage migration inhibitory factor via structure-based virtual screening and bioassays. , 2014, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[15]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Induced Fit, Conformational Selection and Independent Dynamic Segments: an Extended View of Binding Events Opinion , 2022 .

[16]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Assessing an Ensemble Docking-Based Virtual Screening Strategy for Kinase Targets by Considering Protein Flexibility , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[17]  Xiaohua Zhang,et al.  Toward Fully Automated High Performance Computing Drug Discovery: A Massively Parallel Virtual Screening Pipeline for Docking and Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area Rescoring to Improve Enrichment , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[19]  Huikun Zhang,et al.  Machine Learning Consensus Scoring Improves Performance Across Targets in Structure-Based Virtual Screening , 2017, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[20]  Dávid Bajusz,et al.  DUckCov: a Dynamic Undocking‐Based Virtual Screening Protocol for Covalent Binders , 2019, ChemMedChem.

[21]  Alessandro Contini,et al.  Improved Computation of Protein-Protein Relative Binding Energies with the Nwat-MMGBSA Method , 2016, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[22]  Scott P. Brown,et al.  Large-scale application of high-throughput molecular mechanics with Poisson-Boltzmann surface area for routine physics-based scoring of protein-ligand complexes. , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[23]  A. Cavalli,et al.  Dynamic Docking: A Paradigm Shift in Computational Drug Discovery , 2017, Molecules.

[24]  Stefano Alcaro,et al.  A Pipeline To Enhance Ligand Virtual Screening: Integrating Molecular Dynamics and Fingerprints for Ligand and Proteins , 2015, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[25]  Bohdan Waszkowycz,et al.  Towards improving compound selection in structure-based virtual screening. , 2008, Drug discovery today.

[26]  Hualiang Jiang,et al.  Identifying novel selective non-nucleoside DNA methyltransferase 1 inhibitors through docking-based virtual screening. , 2014, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[27]  Brian K. Shoichet,et al.  Virtual screening of chemical libraries , 2004, Nature.

[28]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Constructing and Validating High-Performance MIEC-SVM Models in Virtual Screening for Kinases: A Better Way for Actives Discovery , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[29]  M. Entzeroth,et al.  Emerging trends in high-throughput screening. , 2003, Current opinion in pharmacology.

[30]  Xi-Ping Huang,et al.  Structure-Based Discovery of Novel and Selective 5-Hydroxytryptamine 2B Receptor Antagonists for the Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. , 2016, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[31]  Hwangseo Park,et al.  Consensus Scoring Approach To Identify the Inhibitors of AMP-Activated Protein Kinase α2 with Virtual Screening , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[32]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Quo vadis, virtual screening? A comprehensive survey of prospective applications. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[33]  Yan Liu,et al.  Structure-Based Identification of Novel Ligands Targeting Multiple Sites within a Chemokine-G-Protein-Coupled-Receptor Interface. , 2016, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[34]  F. J. Luque,et al.  Dynamic undocking and the quasi-bound state as tools for drug discovery , 2016, Nature Chemistry.

[35]  R. Nussinov,et al.  The role of dynamic conformational ensembles in biomolecular recognition. , 2009, Nature chemical biology.

[36]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  How Does Consensus Scoring Work for Virtual Library Screening? An Idealized Computer Experiment , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[37]  Nagi G. Ayad,et al.  DD-01LIGAND- AND STRUCTURE-BASED VIRTUAL SCREENING TO DISCOVER POLYPHARMACOLOGICAL DUAL EGFR AND BRD4 INHIBITORS , 2014 .

[38]  D. E. Clark,et al.  Outstanding challenges in protein–ligand docking and structure‐based virtual screening , 2011 .

[39]  Elizabeth Yuriev,et al.  Challenges and advances in computational docking: 2009 in review , 2011, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[40]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Assessing the Performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA Methods. 1. The Accuracy of Binding Free Energy Calculations Based on Molecular Dynamics Simulations , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[41]  Edward W. Lowe,et al.  Computational Methods in Drug Discovery , 2014, Pharmacological Reviews.

[42]  Felice C. Lightstone,et al.  Accounting for water molecules in drug design , 2011, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[43]  Zhihai Liu,et al.  Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on an Updated Benchmark: 2. Evaluation Methods and General Results , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[44]  Sandra Solari,et al.  Identification of novel 11β-HSD1 inhibitors by combined ligand- and structure-based virtual screening , 2014, Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology.

[45]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Development and Evaluation of an Integrated Virtual Screening Strategy by Combining Molecular Docking and Pharmacophore Searching Based on Multiple Protein Structures , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[47]  Cícero Nogueira dos Santos,et al.  Boosting Docking-Based Virtual Screening with Deep Learning , 2016, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[48]  Jahan B. Ghasemi,et al.  Dynamic structure based pharmacophore modeling of the Acetylcholinesterase reveals several potential inhibitors , 2019, Journal of biomolecular structure & dynamics.

[49]  E. Fischer Einfluss der Configuration auf die Wirkung der Enzyme , 1894 .

[50]  Shu Liu,et al.  Application of Consensus Scoring and Principal Component Analysis for Virtual Screening against β-Secretase (BACE-1) , 2012, PloS one.

[51]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein-ligand docking: recent advances and future directions. , 2010, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[52]  Dan Li,et al.  Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power. , 2016, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[53]  Dan Li,et al.  Discovery of Novel ROCK1 Inhibitors via Integrated Virtual Screening Strategy and Bioassays , 2015, Scientific Reports.

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

[55]  G. Oliva,et al.  Virtual screening and its integration with modern drug design technologies. , 2008, Current medicinal chemistry.

[56]  L. Kavraki,et al.  Understanding the challenges of protein flexibility in drug design , 2015, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[57]  Irene Maffucci,et al.  An Efficient Implementation of the Nwat-MMGBSA Method to Rescore Docking Results in Medium-Throughput Virtual Screenings , 2018, Front. Chem..

[58]  E. Di Cera,et al.  Conformational selection is a dominant mechanism of ligand binding. , 2013, Biochemistry.

[59]  J. Mccammon,et al.  Exploring the role of receptor flexibility in structure-based drug discovery. , 2014, Biophysical chemistry.

[60]  J. Changeux,et al.  Conformational selection or induced fit? 50 years of debate resolved , 2011, F1000 biology reports.

[61]  E. Di Cera,et al.  Conformational selection or induced fit? A critical appraisal of the kinetic mechanism. , 2012, Biochemistry.

[62]  S. Genheden,et al.  The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate ligand-binding affinities , 2015, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[63]  D. Case,et al.  Characterization of domain-peptide interaction interface: a case study on the amphiphysin-1 SH3 domain. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[64]  Pedro Alexandrino Fernandes,et al.  Protein–ligand docking: Current status and future challenges , 2006, Proteins.

[65]  P. Kollman,et al.  Calculating structures and free energies of complex molecules: combining molecular mechanics and continuum models. , 2000, Accounts of chemical research.

[66]  M. Lill Efficient incorporation of protein flexibility and dynamics into molecular docking simulations. , 2011, Biochemistry.

[67]  Hualiang Jiang,et al.  Discovery and Optimization of Novel, Selective Histone Methyltransferase SET7 Inhibitors by Pharmacophore- and Docking-Based Virtual Screening. , 2015, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[69]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  High-throughput and in silico screenings in drug discovery , 2009, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[70]  László Kovács,et al.  Structure-Based Consensus Scoring Scheme for Selecting Class A Aminergic GPCR Fragments , 2016, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[71]  Ismael Zamora,et al.  Suitability of GRIND-Based Principal Properties for the Description of Molecular Similarity and Ligand-Based Virtual Screening , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[72]  Richard A. Lewis,et al.  Lessons in molecular recognition: the effects of ligand and protein flexibility on molecular docking accuracy. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[73]  Mikko J. Vainio,et al.  Similarity based virtual screening: a tool for targeted library design. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[74]  R. Zwanzig High‐Temperature Equation of State by a Perturbation Method. I. Nonpolar Gases , 1954 .

[75]  Matteo Masetti,et al.  Protein Flexibility in Drug Discovery: From Theory to Computation , 2015, ChemMedChem.

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

[77]  Ashini Bolia,et al.  Adaptive BP-Dock: An Induced Fit Docking Approach for Full Receptor Flexibility , 2016, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[78]  Youyong Li,et al.  Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 4. Accuracies of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methodologies evaluated by various simulation protocols using PDBbind data set. , 2014, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[79]  Pratyush Tiwary,et al.  Prediction of Protein-Ligand Binding Poses via a Combination of Induced Fit Docking and Metadynamics Simulations. , 2016, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[80]  Philip C Biggin,et al.  Statistical Analysis on the Performance of Molecular Mechanics Poisson–Boltzmann Surface Area versus Absolute Binding Free Energy Calculations: Bromodomains as a Case Study , 2017, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[81]  Yoshiaki Nakagawa,et al.  Structure-based virtual screening for insect ecdysone receptor ligands using MM/PBSA. , 2019, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[82]  Stephani Joy Y Macalino,et al.  Role of computer-aided drug design in modern drug discovery , 2015, Archives of Pharmacal Research.

[83]  Jie Liu,et al.  Classification of Current Scoring Functions , 2015, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[84]  Jessica Holien,et al.  Improvements, trends, and new ideas in molecular docking: 2012–2013 in review , 2015, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[85]  Xudong Huang,et al.  Deep learning and virtual drug screening , 2018, Future medicinal chemistry.

[86]  Chung F. Wong,et al.  Flexible receptor docking for drug discovery , 2015, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[87]  Paul D Lyne,et al.  Structure-based virtual screening: an overview. , 2002, Drug discovery today.

[88]  Leonardo L. G. Ferreira,et al.  Molecular Docking and Structure-Based Drug Design Strategies , 2015, Molecules.

[89]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Assessing the performance of the molecular mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann surface area and molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area methods. II. The accuracy of ranking poses generated from docking , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[90]  M. Natália D. S. Cordeiro,et al.  CompScore: Boosting Structure-Based Virtual Screening Performance by Incorporating Docking Scoring Function Components into Consensus Scoring , 2019, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[91]  Andrea Cavalli,et al.  Recent advances in dynamic docking for drug discovery , 2017 .

[92]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Folding funnels and binding mechanisms. , 1999, Protein engineering.

[93]  Shuichi Hirono,et al.  Comparison of Consensus Scoring Strategies for Evaluating Computational Models of Protein-Ligand Complexes , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[94]  Miklos Feher,et al.  Consensus scoring for protein-ligand interactions. , 2006, Drug discovery today.

[95]  Naomie Salim,et al.  Ligand expansion in ligand-based virtual screening using relevance feedback , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[96]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  New methodologies for ligand-based virtual screening. , 2005, Current pharmaceutical design.

[97]  D. Koshland The Key–Lock Theory and the Induced Fit Theory , 1995 .

[98]  Chen Cui,et al.  Improving the Virtual Screening Ability of Target-Specific Scoring Functions Using Deep Learning Methods , 2019, Front. Pharmacol..

[99]  Tao Wang,et al.  Fragment-based drug discovery and molecular docking in drug design. , 2015, Current pharmaceutical biotechnology.

[100]  J. Kirkwood Statistical Mechanics of Fluid Mixtures , 1935 .

[101]  Marta M. Stepniewska-Dziubinska,et al.  Development and evaluation of a deep learning model for protein–ligand binding affinity prediction , 2017, Bioinform..

[102]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  Protein Flexibility in Virtual Screening: The BACE-1 Case Study , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[103]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Ligand docking and structure-based virtual screening in drug discovery. , 2007, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[104]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 5. Improved docking performance using high solute dielectric constant MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA rescoring. , 2014, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[105]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Virtual compound screening in drug discovery. , 2012, Future medicinal chemistry.

[106]  Supratik Mukhopadhyay,et al.  A graph-based approach to construct target-focused libraries for virtual screening , 2016, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[107]  Jian Wang,et al.  Characterization of Small Molecule Binding. I. Accurate Identification of Strong Inhibitors in Virtual Screening , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[109]  J. Aqvist,et al.  A new method for predicting binding affinity in computer-aided drug design. , 1994, Protein engineering.

[110]  D. Frank Hsu,et al.  Consensus Scoring Criteria for Improving Enrichment in Virtual Screening , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[111]  Thierry Langer,et al.  A Molecular Dynamics–Shared Pharmacophore Approach to Boost Early‐Enrichment Virtual Screening: A Case Study on Peroxisome Proliferator‐Activated Receptor α , 2017, ChemMedChem.

[112]  Bo Ding,et al.  Characterizing Binding of Small Molecules. II. Evaluating the Potency of Small Molecules to Combat Resistance Based on Docking Structures , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[113]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Identification and Preliminary SAR Analysis of Novel Type-I Inhibitors of TIE-2 via Structure-Based Virtual Screening and Biological Evaluation in in vitro Models , 2015, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[114]  Pei Tang,et al.  Ensemble-based virtual screening for cannabinoid-like potentiators of the human glycine receptor α1 for the treatment of pain. , 2015, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[115]  Nagi G. Ayad,et al.  Abstract 3690: Ligand- and structure-based virtual screening to discover dual EGFR and BRD4 inhibitors , 2015 .

[116]  Felice C Lightstone,et al.  Approaches to efficiently estimate solvation and explicit water energetics in ligand binding: the use of WaterMap , 2013, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[117]  Wafik S El-Deiry,et al.  Genetic and Pharmacological Screens Converge in Identifying FLIP, BCL2, and IAP Proteins as Key Regulators of Sensitivity to the TRAIL-Inducing Anticancer Agent ONC201/TIC10. , 2015, Cancer research.

[118]  Maurizio Recanatini,et al.  How dynamic docking simulations can help to tackle tough drug targets. , 2018, Future medicinal chemistry.

[119]  Thierry Langer,et al.  Common Hits Approach: Combining Pharmacophore Modeling and Molecular Dynamics Simulations , 2017, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[120]  Wolfgang Sippl,et al.  Virtual Screening of PRK1 Inhibitors: Ensemble Docking, Rescoring Using Binding Free Energy Calculation and QSAR Model Development , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[121]  Yi-Hui Peng,et al.  Identification of Substituted Naphthotriazolediones as Novel Tryptophan 2,3-Dioxygenase (TDO) Inhibitors through Structure-Based Virtual Screening. , 2015, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[122]  Alessandro Pedretti,et al.  Rescoring and Linearly Combining: A Highly Effective Consensus Strategy for Virtual Screening Campaigns , 2019, International journal of molecular sciences.