Docking and scoring with alternative side‐chain conformations

We describe a scoring and modeling procedure for docking ligands into protein models that have either modeled or flexible side‐chain conformations. Our methodical contribution comprises a procedure for generating new potentials of mean force for the ROTA scoring function which we have introduced previously for optimizing side‐chain conformations with the tool IRECS. The ROTA potentials are specially trained to tolerate small‐scale positional errors of atoms that are characteristic of (i) side‐chain conformations that are modeled using a sparse rotamer library and (ii) ligand conformations that are generated using a docking program. We generated both rigid and flexible protein models with our side‐chain prediction tool IRECS and docked ligands to proteins using the scoring function ROTA and the docking programs FlexX (for rigid side chains) and FlexE (for flexible side chains). We validated our approach on the forty screening targets of the DUD database. The validation shows that the ROTA potentials are especially well suited for estimating the binding affinity of ligands to proteins. The results also show that our procedure can compensate for the performance decrease in screening that occurs when using protein models with side chains modeled with a rotamer library instead of using X‐ray structures. The average runtime per ligand of our method is 168 seconds on an Opteron V20z, which is fast enough to allow virtual screening of compound libraries for drug candidates. Proteins 2009. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

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

[2]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Ligand-supported homology modeling of g-protein-coupled receptor sites: models sufficient for successful virtual screening. , 2004, Angewandte Chemie.

[3]  R. Glen,et al.  Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[4]  Song Liu,et al.  A knowledge-based energy function for protein-ligand, protein-protein, and protein-DNA complexes. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

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

[7]  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..

[8]  DAVID G. KENDALL,et al.  Introduction to Mathematical Statistics , 1947, Nature.

[9]  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.

[10]  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.

[11]  Roland L. Dunbrack,et al.  Bayesian statistical analysis of protein side‐chain rotamer preferences , 1997, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[13]  A. Sali,et al.  Protein Structure Prediction and Structural Genomics , 2001, Science.

[14]  G. Klebe,et al.  Ligand-supported homology modelling of protein binding-sites using knowledge-based potentials. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  C. Bron,et al.  Algorithm 457: finding all cliques of an undirected graph , 1973 .

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

[17]  G. Reinsel,et al.  Introduction to Mathematical Statistics (4th ed.). , 1980 .

[18]  C. Venkatachalam,et al.  LigScore: a novel scoring function for predicting binding affinities. , 2005, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

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

[20]  T. Blundell,et al.  Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[21]  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..

[22]  Brian K Shoichet,et al.  Protein–protein docking with multiple residue conformations and residue substitutions , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

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

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

[26]  L. Kuhn,et al.  Virtual screening with solvation and ligand-induced complementarity , 2000 .

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

[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]  Ingo Muegge.  Effect of ligand volume correction on PMF scoring , 2001, J. Comput. Chem..

[30]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Automated docking with grid‐based energy evaluation , 1992 .

[31]  Adrian A Canutescu,et al.  Access the most recent version at doi: 10.1110/ps.03154503 References , 2003 .

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

[33]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  LUDI: rule-based automatic design of new substituents for enzyme inhibitor leads , 1992, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[34]  Markus Meuwly,et al.  How inaccuracies in protein structure models affect estimates of protein–ligand interactions: Computational analysis of HIV‐I protease inhibitor binding , 2006, Proteins.

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

[36]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Flexible ligand docking using conformational ensembles , 1998, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[37]  György M. Keserü,et al.  Ensemble Docking into Flexible Active Sites. Critical Evaluation of FlexE against JNK-3 and beta-Secretase , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[38]  P. Kollman,et al.  An all atom force field for simulations of proteins and nucleic acids , 1986, Journal of computational chemistry.

[39]  P. Koehl,et al.  A self consistent mean field approach to simultaneous gap closure and side-chain positioning in homology modelling , 1995, Nature Structural Biology.

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

[41]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  IRECS: A new algorithm for the selection of most probable ensembles of side‐chain conformations in protein models , 2007, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[42]  Maria A Miteva,et al.  Fast structure-based virtual ligand screening combining FRED, DOCK, and Surflex. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[43]  Arne Elofsson,et al.  All are not equal: A benchmark of different homology modeling programs , 2005, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[44]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Placement of medium-sized molecular fragments into active sites of proteins , 1996, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[45]  U. Singh,et al.  A NEW FORCE FIELD FOR MOLECULAR MECHANICAL SIMULATION OF NUCLEIC ACIDS AND PROTEINS , 1984 .

[46]  Xiaoqin Zou,et al.  An iterative knowledge‐based scoring function to predict protein–ligand interactions: II. Validation of the scoring function , 2006, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[48]  G. Klebe,et al.  Successful virtual screening for a submicromolar antagonist of the neurokinin-1 receptor based on a ligand-supported homology model. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[49]  Z. Xiang,et al.  Extending the accuracy limits of prediction for side-chain conformations. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[50]  R. Samudrala,et al.  An all-atom distance-dependent conditional probability discriminatory function for protein structure prediction. , 1998, Journal of molecular biology.

[51]  SHENG-YOU HUANG,et al.  An iterative knowledge‐based scoring function to predict protein–ligand interactions: I. Derivation of interaction potentials , 2006, J. Comput. Chem..

[52]  Adam Godzik,et al.  Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences , 2006, Bioinform..

[53]  M. Sippl.  Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to the knowledge-based prediction of local structures in globular proteins. , 1990, Journal of molecular biology.

[54]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  The computer program LUDI: A new method for the de novo design of enzyme inhibitors , 1992, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[55]  R. Friesner,et al.  Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.