Exploring the Potential of Protein-Based Pharmacophore Models in Ligand Pose Prediction and Ranking

Protein-based pharmacophore models derived from protein binding site atoms without the inclusion of any ligand information have become more popular in virtual screening studies. However, the accuracy of protein-based pharmacophore models for reproducing the critical protein-ligand interactions has never been explicitly assessed. In this study, we used known protein-ligand contacts from a large set of experimentally determined protein-ligand complexes to assess the quality of the protein-based pharmacophores in reproducing these critical contacts. We demonstrate how these contacts can be used to optimize the pharmacophore generation procedure to produce pharmacophore models that optimally cover the known protein-ligand interactions. Finally, we explored the potential of the optimized protein-based pharmacophore models for pose prediction and pose rankings. Our results demonstrate that there are significant variations in the success of protein-based pharmacophore models to reproduce native contacts and consequently native ligand poses dependent on the details of the pharmacophore generation process. We show that the generation of optimized protein-based pharmacophore models is a promising approach for ligand pose prediction and pose rankings.

[1]  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.

[2]  Thierry Langer,et al.  LigandScout: 3-D Pharmacophores Derived from Protein-Bound Ligands and Their Use as Virtual Screening Filters , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[3]  David E. Shaw,et al.  PHASE: a new engine for pharmacophore perception, 3D QSAR model development, and 3D database screening: 1. Methodology and preliminary results , 2006, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[4]  P. Goodford.  A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. , 1985, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[5]  Andrea Cavalli,et al.  A Comparative Study on the Application of Hierarchical-Agglomerative Clustering Approaches to Organize Outputs of Reiterated Docking Runs , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[7]  Marvin Waldman,et al.  Application of structure‐based focusing to the estrogen receptor , 2001, J. Comput. Chem..

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

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

[10]  Zhihai Liu,et al.  Evaluation of the performance of four molecular docking programs on a diverse set of protein‐ligand complexes , 2010, J. Comput. Chem..

[11]  Cristina Tintori,et al.  Targets Looking for Drugs: A Multistep Computational Protocol for the Development of Structure-Based Pharmacophores and Their Applications for Hit Discovery , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[12]  Peter Willett,et al.  GALAHAD: 1. Pharmacophore identification by hypermolecular alignment of ligands in 3D , 2006, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[14]  Gabriele Cruciani,et al.  Grid-derived structure-based 3D pharmacophores and their performance compared to docking. , 2010, Drug discovery today. Technologies.

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

[16]  Andrew Smellie,et al.  Identification of Common Functional Configurations Among Molecules , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[17]  Markus A. Lill,et al.  Protein Pharmacophore Selection Using Hydration-Site Analysis , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[18]  Yvonne Connolly Martin.  Distance Comparisons: A New Strategy for Examining Three-Dimensional Structure—Activity Relationships , 1995 .

[19]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Automatic identification and representation of protein binding sites for molecular docking , 1997, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[21]  Xin Chen,et al.  Automated Pharmacophore Identification for Large Chemical Data Sets1 , 1999, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[22]  Dariusz Plewczynski,et al.  Can we trust docking results? Evaluation of seven commonly used programs on PDBbind database , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[23]  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..

[24]  Fabian Mörchen,et al.  Maximum Common Binding Modes (MCBM): Consensus Docking Scoring Using Multiple Ligand Information and Interaction Fingerprints , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[25]  Gilles Marcou,et al.  Hot-Spots-Guided Receptor-Based Pharmacophores (HS-Pharm): A Knowledge-Based Approach to Identify Ligand-Anchoring Atoms in Protein Cavities and Prioritize Structure-Based Pharmacophores , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[26]  W. Kabsch.  A solution for the best rotation to relate two sets of vectors , 1976 .

[27]  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..

[28]  Zhihai Liu,et al.  Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on a Diverse Test Set , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[29]  Todd J. A. Ewing,et al.  Critical evaluation of search algorithms for automated molecular docking and database screening , 1997 .