Lead finder: an approach to improve accuracy of protein-ligand docking, binding energy estimation, and virtual screening.

An innovative molecular docking algorithm and three specialized high accuracy scoring functions are introduced in the Lead Finder docking software. Lead Finder's algorithm for ligand docking combines the classical genetic algorithm with various local optimization procedures and resourceful exploitation of the knowledge generated during docking process. Lead Finder's scoring functions are based on a molecular mechanics functional which explicitly accounts for different types of energy contributions scaled with empiric coefficients to produce three scoring functions tailored for (a) accurate binding energy predictions; (b) correct energy-ranking of docked ligand poses; and (c) correct rank-ordering of active and inactive compounds in virtual screening experiments. The predicted values of the free energy of protein-ligand binding were benchmarked against a set of experimentally measured binding energies for 330 diverse protein-ligand complexes yielding rmsd of 1.50 kcal/mol. The accuracy of ligand docking was assessed on a set of 407 structures, which included almost all published test sets of the following programs: FlexX, Glide SP, Glide XP, Gold, LigandFit, MolDock, and Surflex. rmsd of 2 A or less was observed for 80-96% of the structures in the test sets (80.0% on the Glide XP and FlexX test sets, 96.0% on the Surflex and MolDock test sets). The ability of Lead Finder to distinguish between active and inactive compounds during virtual screening experiments was benchmarked against 34 therapeutically relevant protein targets. Impressive enrichment factors were obtained for almost all of the targets with the average area under receiver operator curve being equal to 0.92.

[1]  Joannis Apostolakis,et al.  GlamDock: Development and Validation of a New Docking Tool on Several Thousand Protein-Ligand Complexes , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[2]  Ajay N. Jain Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[4]  R. Friesner,et al.  Long loop prediction using the protein local optimization program , 2006, Proteins.

[5]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  AffinDB: a freely accessible database of affinities for protein–ligand complexes from the PDB , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[6]  R C Glen,et al.  Molecular recognition using a binary genetic search algorithm. , 1993, Journal of molecular graphics.

[7]  Aniko Simon,et al.  eHiTS: an innovative approach to the docking and scoring function problems. , 2006, Current protein & peptide science.

[8]  F. Lombardo,et al.  Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. , 2001, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[9]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  A semiempirical free energy force field with charge‐based desolvation , 2007, J. Comput. Chem..

[10]  Christopher R. Corbeil,et al.  Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go , 2008, British journal of pharmacology.

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

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

[13]  John P. Overington,et al.  How many drug targets are there? , 2006, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[14]  F Guarnieri,et al.  A self-consistent, microenvironment modulated screened coulomb potential approximation to calculate pH-dependent electrostatic effects in proteins. , 1999, Biophysical journal.

[15]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Recommendations for evaluation of computational methods , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[16]  R Abagyan,et al.  Flexible protein–ligand docking by global energy optimization in internal coordinates , 1997, Proteins.

[17]  E. Mehler Self-Consistent, Free Energy Based Approximation To Calculate pH Dependent Electrostatic Effects in Proteins , 1996 .

[18]  M. Karplus,et al.  Simulation of activation free energies in molecular systems , 1996 .

[19]  Ronald M. Levy,et al.  The SGB/NP hydration free energy model based on the surface generalized born solvent reaction field and novel nonpolar hydration free energy estimators , 2002, J. Comput. Chem..

[20]  Robin Taylor,et al.  Comparing protein–ligand docking programs is difficult , 2005, Proteins.

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

[22]  Colin McMartin,et al.  QXP: Powerful, rapid computer algorithms for structure-based drug design , 1997, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[23]  Junwei Zhang,et al.  Development of KiBank, a database supporting structure-based drug design , 2004, Comput. Biol. Chem..

[24]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

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

[27]  Xin Wen,et al.  BindingDB: a web-accessible database of experimentally determined protein–ligand binding affinities , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[29]  Aniko Simon,et al.  eHiTS: a new fast, exhaustive flexible ligand docking system. , 2007, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

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

[31]  O. Stroganov,et al.  Molecular modeling studies of substrate binding by penicillin acylase , 2008, Biochemistry (Moscow).

[32]  P. Leeson,et al.  The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry , 2007, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

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

[34]  C. Sander,et al.  An effective solvation term based on atomic occupancies for use in protein simulations , 1993 .

[35]  Hege S. Beard,et al.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[36]  J. Irwin,et al.  Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[37]  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.

[38]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Multiple automatic base selection: Protein–ligand docking based on incremental construction without manual intervention , 1997, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[39]  René Thomsen,et al.  MolDock: a new technique for high-accuracy molecular docking. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[40]  Renxiao Wang,et al.  The PDBbind database: collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[41]  J. Scott Dixon,et al.  Flexible ligand docking using a genetic algorithm , 1995, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[42]  Matthew P. Repasky,et al.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[44]  Matthew P. Repasky,et al.  Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[45]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy , 2004, Proteins.

[46]  Ajay N. Jain Bias, reporting, and sharing: computational evaluations of docking methods , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..