Evaluation of docking/scoring approaches: A comparative study based on MMP3 inhibitors

An increasing number of docking/scoring programs are available that use different sampling and scoring algorithms. A reliable scoring function is the crucial element of such approaches. Comparative studies are needed to evaluate their current capabilities. DOCK4 with force field and PMF scoring as well as FlexX were used to evaluate the predictive power of these docking/scoring approaches to identify the correct binding mode of 61 MMP-3 inhibitors in a crystal structure of stromelysin and also to rank them according to their different binding affinities. It was found that DOCK4/PMF scoring performs significantly better than FlexX and DOCK4/FF in both ranking ligands and predicting their binding modes. Most notably, DOCK4/PMF was the only scoring/docking approach that found a significant correlation between binding affinity and predicted score of the docked inhibitors. However, comparing only those cases where the correct binding mode was identified (scoring highest among sampled poses), FlexX showed the best `fine tuning' (lowest rmsd) in predicted binding modes. The results suggest that not so much the sampling procedure but rather the scoring function is the crucial element of a docking program.

[1]  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..

[2]  N. Xuong,et al.  Software for a diffractometer with multiwire area detector. , 1985, Methods in enzymology.

[3]  E. Shakhnovich,et al.  SMoG: de Novo Design Method Based on Simple, Fast, and Accurate Free Energy Estimates. 1. Methodology and Supporting Evidence , 1996 .

[4]  A. Doig,et al.  Toward the semiquantitative estimation of binding constants guides for peptide peptide binding in aqueous solution , 1991 .

[5]  P. Kollman,et al.  An all atom force field for simulations of proteins and nucleic acids , 1986, Journal of computational chemistry.

[6]  H K Chan,et al.  Human fibroblast stromelysin catalytic domain: expression, purification, and characterization of a C-terminally truncated form. , 1991, Biochemistry.

[7]  J J Baldwin,et al.  Application of the three-dimensional structures of protein target molecules in structure-based drug design. , 1994, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[9]  Garland R. Marshall,et al.  VALIDATE: A New Method for the Receptor-Based Prediction of Binding Affinities of Novel Ligands , 1996 .

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

[11]  P. Hajduk,et al.  Evaluation of PMF scoring in docking weak ligands to the FK506 binding protein. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[12]  Peter Willett,et al.  Designing bioactive molecules : three-dimensional techniques and applications , 1998 .

[13]  A. Warshel,et al.  A fast estimate of electrostatic group contributions to the free energy of protein-inhibitor binding. , 1997, Protein engineering.

[14]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  FLOG: A system to select ‘quasi-flexible’ ligands complementary to a receptor of known three-dimensional structure , 1994, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[15]  Arieh Warshel,et al.  The Reorganization Energy of Cytochrome c Revisited , 1997 .

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

[17]  M. Sippl,et al.  Helmholtz free energies of atom pair interactions in proteins. , 1996, Folding & design.

[18]  A. Warshel,et al.  Microscopic and semimacroscopic redox calculations: what can and cannot be learned from continuum models , 1997, JBIC Journal of Biological Inorganic Chemistry.