MEDock: a web server for efficient prediction of ligand binding sites based on a novel optimization algorithm

The prediction of ligand binding sites is an essential part of the drug discovery process. Knowing the location of binding sites greatly facilitates the search for hits, the lead optimization process, the design of site-directed mutagenesis experiments and the hunt for structural features that influence the selectivity of binding in order to minimize the drug's adverse effects. However, docking is still the rate-limiting step for such predictions; consequently, much more efficient algorithms are required. In this article, the design of the MEDock web server is described. The goal of this sever is to provide an efficient utility for predicting ligand binding sites. The MEDock web server incorporates a global search strategy that exploits the maximum entropy property of the Gaussian probability distribution in the context of information theory. As a result of the global search strategy, the optimization algorithm incorporated in MEDock is significantly superior when dealing with very rugged energy landscapes, which usually have insurmountable barriers. This article describes four different benchmark cases that span a diverse set of different types of ligand binding interactions. These benchmarks were compared with the use of the Lamarckian genetic algorithm (LGA), which is the major workhorse of the well-known AutoDock program. These results demonstrate that MEDock consistently converged to the correct binding modes with significantly smaller numbers of energy evaluations than the LGA required. When judged by a threshold of the number of energy evaluations consumed in the docking simulation, MEDock also greatly elevates the rate of accurate predictions for all benchmark cases. MEDock is available at and .

[1]  J. Alvarez High-throughput docking as a source of novel drug leads. , 2004, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[2]  J. Mccammon,et al.  Computational drug design accommodating receptor flexibility: the relaxed complex scheme. , 2002, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[3]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Toward an outline of the topography of a realistic protein-folding funnel. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking , 2003, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[5]  Yen-Jen Oyang,et al.  ProteMiner-SSM: a web server for efficient analysis of similar protein tertiary substructures , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[6]  A. Hopkins,et al.  Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine , 2004, Nature.

[7]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Virtual screening in lead discovery and optimization. , 2004, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[8]  Jung-Hsin Lin,et al.  The relaxed complex method: Accommodating receptor flexibility for drug design with an improved scoring scheme. , 2003, Biopolymers.

[9]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Funnels, pathways, and the energy landscape of protein folding: A synthesis , 1994, Proteins.

[10]  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.

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

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

[13]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[14]  Brian K. Shoichet,et al.  Virtual screening of chemical libraries , 2004, Nature.

[15]  David E. Clark,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms in Molecular Design , 1999 .

[16]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[17]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[18]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Novel technologies for virtual screening. , 2004, Drug discovery today.

[19]  C. Dobson Chemical space and biology , 2004, Nature.

[20]  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.

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

[22]  Jinn-Moon Yang,et al.  GEMDOCK: A generic evolutionary method for molecular docking , 2004, Proteins.

[23]  A. W. Schüttelkopf,et al.  PRODRG: a tool for high-throughput crystallography of protein-ligand complexes. , 2004, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[24]  J. Mccammon,et al.  HIV‐1 protease molecular dynamics of a wild‐type and of the V82F/I84V mutant: Possible contributions to drug resistance and a potential new target site for drugs , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[25]  Nathan A. Baker,et al.  PDB2PQR: an automated pipeline for the setup of Poisson-Boltzmann electrostatics calculations , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[26]  W. L. Jorgensen The Many Roles of Computation in Drug Discovery , 2004, Science.

[27]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[28]  J. Onuchic,et al.  Protein folding funnels: a kinetic approach to the sequence-structure relationship. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.