Evaluation of the Wilma-SIE Virtual Screening Method in Community Structure-Activity Resource 2013 and 2014 Blind Challenges

Prospective assessments of the Wilma-SIE (solvated interaction energy) platform for ligand docking and ranking were performed during the 2013 and 2014 editions of the Community Structure-Activity Resource (CSAR) blind challenge. Diverse targets like a steroid-binding protein, a serine protease (factor Xa), a tyrosine kinase (Syk), and a nucleotide methyltransferase (TrmD) were included. Pose selection was achieved with high precision; in all 24 tests Wilma-SIE top-ranked the native pose among carefully generated sets of decoy conformations. Good separation for the native pose was also observed indicating robustness in pose scoring. Cross-docking was also accomplished with high accuracy for the various systems, with ligand median-RMSD values around 1 Å from the crystal structures. Larger deviations were occasionally obtained due to the rigid-target approach even if multiple target structures were used. Affinity ranking of congeneric ligands after cross-docking was reasonable for three of the four systems, with Spearman ranking coefficients around 0.6. Poor affinity ranking for FXa is possibly due to missing structural domains, which are present during measurements. Assignment of protonation states is critical for affinity scoring with the SIE function, as shown here for the Syk system. Including the FiSH model improved cross-docking but worsened affinity predictions, pointing to the need for further fine-tuning of this newer solvation model. The consistently strong performance of the Wilma-SIE platform in recent CSAR and SAMPL blind challenges validates its applicability for virtual screening on a broad range of molecular targets.

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

[2]  Enrico O. Purisima,et al.  Molecular surface generation using marching tetrahedra , 1998, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[4]  Sathesh Bhat,et al.  Molecular surface generation using a variable‐radius solvent probe , 2005, Proteins.

[5]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  Converging free energy estimates: MM‐PB(GB)SA studies on the protein–protein complex Ras–Raf , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[6]  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.

[7]  Traian Sulea,et al.  Exhaustive search and solvated interaction energy (SIE) for virtual screening and affinity prediction , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[8]  Imran Siddiqi,et al.  Solvated Interaction Energy (SIE) for Scoring Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities, 1. Exploring the Parameter Space , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[9]  Junmei Wang,et al.  Development and testing of a general amber force field , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[10]  M. Gilson,et al.  Calculation of cyclodextrin binding affinities: energy, entropy, and implications for drug design. , 2004, Biophysical journal.

[11]  Enrico O. Purisima,et al.  Fast summation boundary element method for calculating solvation free energies of macromolecules , 1998, J. Comput. Chem..

[12]  Christopher R. Corbeil,et al.  Rapid prediction of solvation free energy. 3. Application to the SAMPL2 challenge , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[13]  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..

[14]  Marwen Naïm,et al.  Molecular dynamics-solvated interaction energy studies of protein-protein interactions: the MP1-p14 scaffolding complex. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  Enrico O. Purisima,et al.  A simple yet accurate boundary element method for continuum dielectric calculations , 1995, J. Comput. Chem..

[16]  Campbell McInnes,et al.  Virtual screening strategies in drug discovery. , 2007, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[17]  M. Gilson,et al.  Free energy, entropy, and induced fit in host-guest recognition: calculations with the second-generation mining minima algorithm. , 2004, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

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

[19]  Traian Sulea,et al.  The solvated interaction energy method for scoring binding affinities. , 2012, Methods in molecular biology.

[20]  Enrico O. Purisima,et al.  A new tetrahedral tesselation scheme for isosurface generation , 1998, Comput. Graph..

[21]  Richard D. Smith,et al.  CSAR Benchmark Exercise of 2010: Selection of the Protein–Ligand Complexes , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[22]  Araz Jakalian,et al.  Fast, efficient generation of high‐quality atomic charges. AM1‐BCC model: I. Method , 2000 .

[23]  Traian Sulea,et al.  Rapid Prediction of Solvation Free Energy. 2. The First-Shell Hydration (FiSH) Continuum Model. , 2010, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

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

[25]  Heather A Carlson,et al.  Gaussian-weighted RMSD superposition of proteins: a structural comparison for flexible proteins and predicted protein structures. , 2006, Biophysical journal.

[26]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  The Amber biomolecular simulation programs , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[27]  Traian Sulea,et al.  Exhaustive docking and solvated interaction energy scoring: lessons learned from the SAMPL4 challenge , 2014, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[28]  P. Kollman,et al.  A Second Generation Force Field for the Simulation of Proteins, Nucleic Acids, and Organic Molecules , 1995 .

[29]  David Calkins,et al.  Towards the comprehensive, rapid, and accurate prediction of the favorable tautomeric states of drug-like molecules in aqueous solution , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[30]  Traian Sulea,et al.  Solvated Interaction Energy (SIE) for Scoring Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities. 2. Benchmark in the CSAR-2010 Scoring Exercise , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[31]  T. Halgren.  MMFF VII. Characterization of MMFF94, MMFF94s, and other widely available force fields for conformational energies and for intermolecular‐interaction energies and geometries , 1999, Journal of computational chemistry.

[32]  Richard D. Smith,et al.  CSAR Benchmark Exercise of 2010: Combined Evaluation Across All Submitted Scoring Functions , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..