Exploring the stability of ligand binding modes to proteins by molecular dynamics simulations

The binding mode prediction is of great importance to structure-based drug design. The discrimination of various binding poses of ligand generated by docking is a great challenge not only to docking score functions but also to the relatively expensive free energy calculation methods. Here we systematically analyzed the stability of various ligand poses under molecular dynamics (MD) simulation. First, a data set of 120 complexes was built based on the typical physicochemical properties of drug-like ligands. Three potential binding poses (one correct pose and two decoys) were selected for each ligand from self-docking in addition to the experimental pose. Then, five independent MD simulations for each pose were performed with different initial velocities for the statistical analysis. Finally, the stabilities of ligand poses under MD were evaluated and compared with the native one from crystal structure. We found that about 94% of the native poses were maintained stable during the simulations, which suggests that MD simulations are accurate enough to judge most experimental binding poses as stable properly. Interestingly, incorrect decoy poses were maintained much less and 38–44% of decoys could be excluded just by performing equilibrium MD simulations, though 56–62% of decoys were stable. The computationally-heavy binding free energy calculation can be performed only for these survived poses.

[1]  Richard D. Smith,et al.  Recent improvements to Binding MOAD: a resource for protein–ligand binding affinities and structures , 2014, Nucleic Acids Res..

[2]  Fumio Hirata,et al.  Self-consistent description of a metal–water interface by the Kohn–Sham density functional theory and the three-dimensional reference interaction site model , 1999 .

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

[4]  James Raftery,et al.  X-Ray and molecular dynamics studies of concanavalin-A glucoside and mannoside complexes Relating structure to thermodynamics of binding , 1998 .

[5]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 5. Improved docking performance using high solute dielectric constant MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA rescoring. , 2014, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[6]  Charles C. Persinger,et al.  How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge , 2010, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[7]  Pratyush Tiwary,et al.  Prediction of Protein-Ligand Binding Poses via a Combination of Induced Fit Docking and Metadynamics Simulations. , 2016, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[8]  Chang-Guo Zhan,et al.  Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Approach Using a New Scoring Function , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[9]  Christine Humblet,et al.  Investigation of MM-PBSA Rescoring of Docking Poses , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[10]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening , 2002, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[11]  Yanli Wang,et al.  Evaluation and Application of MD-PB/SA in Structure-Based Hierarchical Virtual Screening , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[12]  Edward H. Kerns,et al.  Drug-like Properties: Concepts, Structure Design and Methods: from ADME to Toxicity Optimization , 2008 .

[13]  A. Pohorille,et al.  Free energy calculations : theory and applications in chemistry and biology , 2007 .

[14]  G. V. Paolini,et al.  Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. , 2012, Nature chemistry.

[15]  Benoît Roux,et al.  Grand canonical Monte Carlo simulations of water in protein environments. , 2004, The Journal of chemical physics.

[16]  Daniel J. Sindhikara,et al.  Bad Seeds Sprout Perilous Dynamics: Stochastic Thermostat Induced Trajectory Synchronization in Biomolecules. , 2009, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

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

[18]  A. Leach,et al.  Prediction of Protein—Ligand Interactions. Docking and Scoring: Successes and Gaps , 2006 .

[19]  Hege S. Beard,et al.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  S. Genheden,et al.  The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate ligand-binding affinities , 2015, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[21]  Mathias Dunkel,et al.  SuperLigands – a database of ligand structures derived from the Protein Data Bank , 2005, BMC Bioinformatics.

[22]  David S. Wishart,et al.  DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[23]  Christian Kramer,et al.  Improving Docking Results via Reranking of Ensembles of Ligand Poses in Multiple X-ray Protein Conformations with MM-GBSA , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[24]  Markus Wagener,et al.  A flexible approach to induced fit docking. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[25]  Pengfei Li,et al.  Taking into Account the Ion-induced Dipole Interaction in the Nonbonded Model of Ions. , 2014, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

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

[27]  Matthieu Montes,et al.  Benchmarking Data Sets for the Evaluation of Virtual Ligand Screening Methods: Review and Perspectives , 2015, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[28]  Didier Rognan,et al.  sc-PDB: an Annotated Database of Druggable Binding Sites from the Protein Data Bank , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[29]  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..

[30]  Anthony Nicholls,et al.  Essential considerations for using protein-ligand structures in drug discovery. , 2012, Drug discovery today.

[31]  A Srinivas Reddy,et al.  Virtual screening in drug discovery -- a computational perspective. , 2007, Current protein & peptide science.

[32]  K. Dill,et al.  Binding of small-molecule ligands to proteins: "what you see" is not always "what you get". , 2009, Structure.

[33]  Michael G. Lerner,et al.  Binding MOAD (Mother Of All Databases) , 2005, Proteins.

[34]  Giulio Rastelli,et al.  Fast and accurate predictions of binding free energies using MM‐PBSA and MM‐GBSA , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[35]  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..

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

[37]  Alauddin Ahmed,et al.  Hydration Free Energies of Multifunctional Nitroaromatic Compounds. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[38]  P. Leeson,et al.  The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry , 2007, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[39]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[40]  Paul D Leeson,et al.  Molecular Property Design: Does Everyone Get It? , 2015, ACS medicinal chemistry letters.

[41]  Ross C. Walker,et al.  The implementation of a fast and accurate QM/MM potential method in Amber , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[42]  Richard D. Smith,et al.  CSAR Data Set Release 2012: Ligands, Affinities, Complexes, and Docking Decoys , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[43]  R. Kroemer Structure-based drug design: docking and scoring. , 2007, Current protein & peptide science.

[44]  Jonathan W. Essex,et al.  An empirical boundary potential for water droplet simulations , 1995, J. Comput. Chem..

[45]  Jie Li,et al.  Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on an Updated Benchmark: 1. Compilation of the Test Set , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[46]  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.

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

[48]  Zhihai Liu,et al.  Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on an Updated Benchmark: 2. Evaluation Methods and General Results , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[49]  Didier Rognan,et al.  sc-PDB: a 3D-database of ligandable binding sites—10 years on , 2014, Nucleic Acids Res..