SKATE: A docking program that decouples systematic sampling from scoring

SKATE is a docking prototype that decouples systematic sampling from scoring. This novel approach removes any interdependence between sampling and scoring functions to achieve better sampling and, thus, improves docking accuracy. SKATE systematically samples a ligand's conformational, rotational and translational degrees of freedom, as constrained by a receptor pocket, to find sterically allowed poses. Efficient systematic sampling is achieved by pruning the combinatorial tree using aggregate assembly, discriminant analysis, adaptive sampling, radial sampling, and clustering. Because systematic sampling is decoupled from scoring, the poses generated by SKATE can be ranked by any published, or in‐house, scoring function. To test the performance of SKATE, ligands from the Asetex/CDCC set, the Surflex set, and the Vertex set, a total of 266 complexes, were redocked to their respective receptors. The results show that SKATE was able to sample poses within 2 Å RMSD of the native structure for 98, 95, and 98% of the cases in the Astex/CDCC, Surflex, and Vertex sets, respectively. Cross‐docking accuracy of SKATE was also assessed by docking 10 ligands to thymidine kinase and 73 ligands to cyclin‐dependent kinase. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem, 2010

[1]  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.

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

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

[4]  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..

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

[6]  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..

[7]  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..

[8]  G. Marshall,et al.  Calibration of effective van der Waals atomic contact radii for proteins and peptides , 1987, Proteins.

[9]  Jens Meiler,et al.  ROSETTALIGAND: Protein–small molecule docking with full side‐chain flexibility , 2006, Proteins.

[10]  N. Trinajstic.  Mathematical and computational concepts in chemistry , 1986 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

[17]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions , 2002, Proteins.

[18]  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.

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

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

[21]  Garland R. Marshall,et al.  Constrained search of conformational hyperspace , 1989, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[22]  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.

[23]  J. A. Grant,et al.  Gaussian docking functions. , 2003, Biopolymers.

[24]  Ajay N. Jain.  Surflex-Dock 2.1: Robust performance from ligand energetic modeling, ring flexibility, and knowledge-based search , 2007, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[25]  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.

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

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

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

[29]  Garland R. Marshall,et al.  Systematic search in conformational analysis , 1996 .