Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms.

Docking molecules into their respective 3D macromolecular targets is a widely used method for lead optimization. However, the best known docking algorithms often fail to position the ligand in an orientation close to the experimental binding mode. It was reported recently that consensus scoring enhances the hit rates in a virtual screening experiment. This methodology focused on the top-ranked pose, with the underlying assumption that the orientation/conformation of the docked compound is the most accurate. In an effort to eliminate the scoring function bias, and assess the ability of the docking algorithms to provide solutions similar to the crystallographic modes, we investigated the most known docking programs and evaluated all of the resultant poses. We present the results of an extensive computational study in which five docking programs (FlexX, DOCK, GOLD, LigandFit, Glide) were investigated against 14 protein families (69 targets). Our findings show that some algorithms perform consistently better than others, and a correspondence between the nature of the active site and the best docking algorithm can be found.

[1]  I D Kuntz,et al.  Inhibition of the fusion-inducing conformational change of influenza hemagglutinin by benzoquinones and hydroquinones. , 1993, Biochemistry.

[2]  I D Kuntz,et al.  Rational design of selective submicromolar inhibitors of Tritrichomonas foetus hypoxanthine-guanine-xanthine phosphoribosyltransferase. , 2000, Biochemistry.

[3]  J. S. Dixon,et al.  Evaluation of the CASP2 docking section , 1997, Proteins.

[4]  Kenneth M. Merz,et al.  Combined Quantum Mechanical/Molecular Mechanical Methodologies Applied to Biomolecular Systems , 1999 .

[5]  M. Gilson,et al.  The statistical-thermodynamic basis for computation of binding affinities: a critical review. , 1997, Biophysical journal.

[6]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Structure-based discovery of inhibitors of thymidylate synthase. , 1993, Science.

[7]  D. Rognan,et al.  Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  W. Goddard,et al.  Charge equilibration for molecular dynamics simulations , 1991 .

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

[10]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Protein‐based virtual screening of chemical databases. II. Are homology models of g‐protein coupled receptors suitable targets? , 2002, Proteins.

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

[12]  A. Ortiz,et al.  Assessment of solvation effects on calculated binding affinity differences: trypsin inhibition by flavonoids as a model system for congeneric series. , 1997, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[13]  R. Clark,et al.  Consensus scoring for ligand/protein interactions. , 2002, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[14]  D K Gehlhaar,et al.  De novo design of enzyme inhibitors by Monte Carlo ligand generation. , 1995, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[15]  M. L. Connolly.  Analytical molecular surface calculation , 1983 .

[16]  J. Mestres,et al.  Similarity versus docking in 3D virtual screening , 2000 .

[17]  Arnold T. Hagler,et al.  On the use of quantum energy surfaces in the derivation of molecular force fields , 1994 .

[18]  A. Debnath,et al.  Structure-based identification of small molecule antiviral compounds targeted to the gp41 core structure of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[20]  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..

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

[22]  C. Venkatachalam,et al.  LigandFit: a novel method for the shape-directed rapid docking of ligands to protein active sites. , 2003, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

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

[24]  Daniel A. Gschwend,et al.  Specificity in structure‐based drug design: Identification of a novel, selective inhibitor of Pneumocystis carinii dihydrofolate reductase , 1997, Proteins.

[25]  M Rarey,et al.  Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[26]  Ming-Jing Hwang,et al.  Derivation of Class II Force Fields. 2. Derivation and Characterization of a Class II Force Field, CFF93, for the Alkyl Functional Group and Alkane Molecules , 1994 .

[27]  Abby L. Parrill,et al.  Rational drug design : novel methodology and practical applications , 1999 .

[28]  I D Kuntz,et al.  Structure-based discovery of ligands targeted to the RNA double helix. , 1997, Biochemistry.

[29]  Robin Taylor,et al.  A new test set for validating predictions of protein–ligand interaction , 2002, Proteins.

[30]  I D Kuntz,et al.  Inhibitors of kinesin activity from structure-based computer screening. , 2000, Biochemistry.

[31]  Charles L. Brooks,et al.  Assessing search strategies for flexible docking , 1998, J. Comput. Chem..

[32]  Gennady M Verkhivker,et al.  Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. , 1995, Chemistry & biology.

[33]  M. Murcko,et al.  Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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