Improving the Scoring of Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity by Including the Effects of Structural Water and Electronic Polarization

Docking programs that use scoring functions to estimate binding affinities of small molecules to biological targets are widely applied in drug design and drug screening with partial success. But accurate and efficient scoring functions for protein-ligand binding affinity still present a grand challenge to computational chemists. In this study, the polarized protein-specific charge model (PPC) is incorporated into the molecular mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann surface area (MM/PBSA) method to rescore the binding poses of some protein-ligand complexes, for which docking programs, such as Autodock, could not predict their binding modes correctly. Different sampling techniques (single minimized conformation and multiple molecular dynamics (MD) snapshots) are used to test the performance of MM/PBSA combined with the PPC model. Our results show the availability and effectiveness of this approach in correctly ranking the binding poses. More importantly, the bridging water molecules are found to play an important role in correctly determining the protein-ligand binding modes. Explicitly including these bridging water molecules in MM/PBSA calculations improves the prediction accuracy significantly. Our study sheds light on the importance of both bridging water molecules and the electronic polarization in the development of more reliable scoring functions for predicting molecular docking and protein-ligand binding affinity.

[1]  B. Berne,et al.  Role of the active-site solvent in the thermodynamics of factor Xa ligand binding. , 2008, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[2]  Robert Abel,et al.  Motifs for molecular recognition exploiting hydrophobic enclosure in protein–ligand binding , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  B. Brooks,et al.  An analysis of the accuracy of Langevin and molecular dynamics algorithms , 1988 .

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

[5]  T. Darden,et al.  Particle mesh Ewald: An N⋅log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems , 1993 .

[6]  T Lengauer,et al.  The particle concept: placing discrete water molecules during protein‐ligand docking predictions , 1999, Proteins.

[7]  Philip M. Dean,et al.  Hydration in drug design. 3. Conserved water molecules at the ligand-binding sites of homologous proteins , 1995, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[9]  Philip M. Dean,et al.  Hydration in drug design. 1. Multiple hydrogen-bonding features of water molecules in mediating protein-ligand interactions , 1995, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[10]  Urban Bren,et al.  Do all pieces make a whole? Thiele cumulants and the free energy decomposition , 2007 .

[11]  P. Kollman,et al.  A well-behaved electrostatic potential-based method using charge restraints for deriving atomic char , 1993 .

[12]  U. Ryde,et al.  Ligand affinities predicted with the MM/PBSA method: dependence on the simulation method and the force field. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[13]  Richard D. Taylor,et al.  Modeling water molecules in protein-ligand docking using GOLD. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  Chris de Graaf,et al.  Binding mode prediction of cytochrome p450 and thymidine kinase protein-ligand complexes by consideration of water and rescoring in automated docking. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[15]  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.

[16]  Xiaojie Xu,et al.  Recent Advances in Free Energy Calculations with a Combination of Molecular Mechanics and Continuum Models , 2006 .

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

[18]  E. Jaeger,et al.  Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. , 2005, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.

[19]  W. C. Still,et al.  Approximate atomic surfaces from linear combinations of pairwise overlaps (LCPO) , 1999 .

[20]  D. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking to multiple target structures: Incorporation of protein mobility and structural water heterogeneity in AutoDock , 2002, Proteins.

[21]  Ye Mei,et al.  A new quantum method for electrostatic solvation energy of protein. , 2006, The Journal of chemical physics.

[22]  Cristiano Ruch Werneck Guimarães,et al.  MM-GB/SA Rescoring of Docking Poses in Structure-Based Lead Optimization , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[23]  Ye Mei,et al.  Electrostatic polarization makes a substantial contribution to the free energy of avidin-biotin binding. , 2010, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

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

[25]  B. Kuhn,et al.  Validation and use of the MM-PBSA approach for drug discovery. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[27]  P. Kollman,et al.  Biomolecular simulations: recent developments in force fields, simulations of enzyme catalysis, protein-ligand, protein-protein, and protein-nucleic acid noncovalent interactions. , 2001, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[28]  Paul D Lyne,et al.  Accurate prediction of the relative potencies of members of a series of kinase inhibitors using molecular docking and MM-GBSA scoring. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[29]  A. Warshel,et al.  Calculations of antibody-antigen interactions: microscopic and semi-microscopic evaluation of the free energies of binding of phosphorylcholine analogs to McPC603. , 1992, Protein engineering.

[30]  John Z. H. Zhang,et al.  Molecular fractionation with conjugate caps for full quantum mechanical calculation of protein-molecule interaction energy , 2003 .

[31]  Ye Mei,et al.  QUANTUM CALCULATION OF PROTEIN SOLVATION AND PROTEIN–LIGAND BINDING FREE ENERGY FOR HIV-1 PROTEASE/WATER COMPLEX , 2009 .

[32]  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..

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

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

[35]  P. Kollman,et al.  Automatic atom type and bond type perception in molecular mechanical calculations. , 2006, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

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

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

[38]  Chris Oostenbrink,et al.  Cytochrome P450 3A4 Inhibition by Ketoconazole: Tackling the Problem of Ligand Cooperativity Using Molecular Dynamics Simulations and Free-Energy Calculations , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[39]  Didier Rognan,et al.  ConsDock: A new program for the consensus analysis of protein–ligand interactions , 2002, Proteins.

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

[41]  Emil Alexov,et al.  Rapid grid‐based construction of the molecular surface and the use of induced surface charge to calculate reaction field energies: Applications to the molecular systems and geometric objects , 2002, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[43]  G. Ciccotti,et al.  Numerical Integration of the Cartesian Equations of Motion of a System with Constraints: Molecular Dynamics of n-Alkanes , 1977 .

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

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

[46]  W Patrick Walters,et al.  A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance , 2004, Proteins.

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

[48]  Thanyada Rungrotmongkol,et al.  Dynamic Behavior of Avian Influenza A Virus Neuraminidase Subtype H5N1 in Complex with Oseltamivir, Zanamivir, Peramivir, and Their Phosphonate Analogues , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[49]  Yingkai Zhang,et al.  An efficient linear scaling method for ab initio calculation of electron density of proteins , 2004 .

[50]  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..

[51]  John Z H Zhang,et al.  Dynamical stability and assembly cooperativity of β-sheet amyloid oligomers--effect of polarization. , 2012, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

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

[53]  B. McConkey,et al.  The performance of current methods in ligand-protein docking , 2002 .

[54]  Maria Kontoyianni,et al.  Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[56]  Milan Hodoscek,et al.  Development and Validation of Empirical Force Field Parameters for Netropsin , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[57]  Philip M. Dean,et al.  Hydration in drug design. 2. Influence of local site surface shape on water binding , 1995, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[58]  Urban Bren,et al.  Individual degrees of freedom and the solvation properties of water. , 2012, The Journal of chemical physics.

[59]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  An Extensive Test of 14 Scoring Functions Using the PDBbind Refined Set of 800 Protein-Ligand Complexes , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[60]  Urban Bren,et al.  Decomposition of the solvation free energies of deoxyribonucleoside triphosphates using the free energy perturbation method. , 2006, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[61]  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.

[62]  P. Kollman,et al.  Application of RESP charges to calculate conformational energies, hydrogen bond energies, and free energies of solvation , 1993 .

[63]  V. Hornak,et al.  Comparison of multiple Amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters , 2006, Proteins.

[64]  Ye Mei,et al.  Developing polarized protein-specific charges for protein dynamics: MD free energy calculation of pKa shifts for Asp26/Asp20 in thioredoxin. , 2008, Biophysical journal.