Structural ensemble in computational drug screening

Importance of the field: Structure-based in silico drug screening is now widely used in drug development projects. Structure-based in silico drug screening is generally performed using a protein–compound docking program and docking scoring function. Many docking programs have been developed over the last 2 decades, but their prediction accuracy remains insufficient. Areas covered in this review: This review highlights the recent progress of the post-processing of protein–compound complexes after docking. What the reader will gain: These methods utilize ensembles of docking poses of compounds to improve the prediction accuracy for the ligand-docking pose and screening results. While the individual docking poses are not reliable, the free energy surface or the most probable docking pose can be estimated from the ensemble of docking poses. Take home message: The protein–compound docking program provides an arbitral rather than a canonical ensemble of docking poses. When the ensemble of docking poses satisfies the canonical ensemble, we can discuss how these post-docking analysis methods work and fail. Thus, improvements to the docking software will be needed in order to generate well-defined ensembles of docking poses.

[1]  Y. Fukunishi,et al.  Classification of chemical compounds by protein-compound docking for use in designing a focused library. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[2]  F. Javier Luque,et al.  Ligand-induced changes in the binding sites of proteins , 2002, Bioinform..

[3]  Allen B Reitz,et al.  Linear interaction energy models for beta-secretase (BACE) inhibitors: Role of van der Waals, electrostatic, and continuum-solvation terms. , 2006, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[4]  Naoki Tanaka,et al.  Small-World Phenomena in Chemical Library Networks: Application to Fragment-Based Drug Discovery , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[5]  B. Roux,et al.  Absolute binding free energy calculations using molecular dynamics simulations with restraining potentials. , 2006, Biophysical journal.

[6]  R Abagyan,et al.  Abagyan R., Totrov M., Kuznetsov D. ICM-A new Method for protein Modeling and Design.Applications to Docking and structure Prediction from the Distorded native Conformation. 1994 J. Comp. Chem. 15, 488-506 , 2007 .

[7]  Jaime Rubio-Martinez,et al.  Comparative Evaluation of MMPBSA and XSCORE To Compute Binding Free Energy in XIAP-Peptide Complexes , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[8]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  A Virtual Active Compound Produced from the Negative Image of a Ligand-binding Pocket, and its Application to in-silico Drug Screening , 2006, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[9]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  An Efficient in Silico Screening Method Based on the Protein-Compound Affinity Matrix and Its Application to the Design of a Focused Library for Cytochrome P450 (CYP) Ligands , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[10]  Y. Fukunishi,et al.  Similarities among receptor pockets and among compounds: analysis and application to in silico ligand screening. , 2005, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

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

[12]  Y. Fukunishi,et al.  The Filling Potential Method: A Method for Estimating the Free Energy Surface for Protein−Ligand Docking , 2003 .

[13]  Francesco Luigi Gervasio,et al.  From A to B in free energy space. , 2007, The Journal of chemical physics.

[14]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Protein-Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculation by the Smooth Reaction Path Generation (SRPG) Method , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

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

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

[18]  Jens Carlsson,et al.  Improving the Accuracy of the Linear Interaction Energy Method for Solvation Free Energies. , 2007, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[19]  Peter Kolb,et al.  Docking screens: right for the right reasons? , 2009, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

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

[21]  M. Gilson,et al.  Calculation of protein-ligand binding affinities. , 2007, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[22]  J. Irwin,et al.  Docking and chemoinformatic screens for new ligands and targets. , 2009, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[23]  Z. Deng,et al.  Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  I. Tinoco,et al.  Equilibrium Information from Nonequilibrium Measurements in an Experimental Test of Jarzynski's Equality , 2002, Science.

[25]  Shuichi Hirono,et al.  Comparison of Consensus Scoring Strategies for Evaluating Computational Models of Protein-Ligand Complexes , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[26]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Molecular docking and ligand specificity in fragment-based inhibitor discovery. , 2009, Nature chemical biology.

[27]  D. Frank Hsu,et al.  Consensus Scoring Criteria for Improving Enrichment in Virtual Screening , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[28]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Multiple target screening method for robust and accurate in silico ligand screening. , 2006, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[29]  D. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing , 1990, Proteins.

[30]  Reiji Teramoto,et al.  Consensus Scoring with Feature Selection for Structure-Based Virtual Screening , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[31]  Yoshifumi Fukunishi,et al.  Structure-based drug screening and ligand-based drug screening with machine learning. , 2009, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[32]  Maria I. Zavodszky,et al.  Scoring confidence index: statistical evaluation of ligand binding mode predictions , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[33]  B. Roux,et al.  Computations of standard binding free energies with molecular dynamics simulations. , 2009, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[34]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Prediction of protein-ligand complex structure by docking software guided by other complex structures. , 2008, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

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

[36]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Noise Reduction Method for Molecular Interaction Energy: Application to in Silico Drug Screening and in Silico Target Protein Screening , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[37]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  In Silico Fragment Screening by Replica Generation (FSRG) Method for Fragment-Based Drug Design , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[38]  G. Vigers,et al.  Multiple active site corrections for docking and virtual screening. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

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

[41]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  A method to enhance the hit ratio by a combination of structure-based drug screening and ligand-based screening , 2008, Advances and applications in bioinformatics and chemistry : AABC.

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

[43]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  ICM—A new method for protein modeling and design: Applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation , 1994, J. Comput. Chem..

[44]  Reiji Teramoto,et al.  Supervised Consensus Scoring for Docking and Virtual Screening , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[45]  K. Schulten,et al.  Free energy calculation from steered molecular dynamics simulations using Jarzynski's equality , 2003 .

[46]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Structure Based Drug Design , 2005 .

[47]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Information decay in molecular docking screens against holo, apo, and modeled conformations of enzymes. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[48]  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.

[49]  D. E. Clark,et al.  Flexible docking using tabu search and an empirical estimate of binding affinity , 1998, Proteins.

[50]  Y. Fukunishi,et al.  Calculation of protein-ligand binding free energy using smooth reaction path generation (SRPG) method: a comparison of the explicit water model, gb/sa model and docking score function. , 2009, Genome informatics. International Conference on Genome Informatics.

[51]  D. Pérahia,et al.  Normal mode analysis as a prerequisite for drug design: Application to matrix metalloproteinases inhibitors , 2006, FEBS letters.

[52]  A. Laio,et al.  Flexible docking in solution using metadynamics. , 2005, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[53]  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.

[54]  Y. Fukunishi,et al.  Finding ligands for G protein-coupled receptors based on the protein-compound affinity matrix. , 2007, Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling.

[55]  Jiro Shimada,et al.  Hidden Active Information in a Random Compound Library: Extraction Using a Pseudo-Structure-Activity Relationship Model , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[56]  Johan Åqvist,et al.  Ligand binding affinity prediction by linear interaction energy methods , 1998, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[58]  Anthony E. Klon,et al.  Combination of a naive Bayes classifier with consensus scoring improves enrichment of high-throughput docking results. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[59]  B. Roux,et al.  Calculation of absolute protein-ligand binding free energy from computer simulations. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[61]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Flexible docking of a ligand peptide to a receptor protein by multicanonical molecular dynamics simulation , 1997 .

[62]  Takatsugu Hirokawa,et al.  [Receptor-ligand docking simulation for membrane proteins]. , 2007, Yakugaku zasshi : Journal of the Pharmaceutical Society of Japan.

[63]  Hans Briem,et al.  Flexsim-X: A Method for the Detection of Molecules with Similar Biological Activity , 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[64]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Protein‐inhibitor flexible docking by a multicanonical sampling: Native complex structure with the lowest free energy and a free‐energy barrier distinguishing the native complex from the others , 2007, Proteins.