Accommodating protein flexibility for structure-based drug design.

Proper incorporation of protein flexibility for prediction of binding poses and affinities of small compounds has attracted increasing attention recently in computational drug design. Various approaches have been proposed to accommodate protein flexibility in the prediction of binding modes and the binding free energy of ligands in an efficient manner. In this review, the significance of incorporating protein flexibility is discussed from the structural biophysical point of view, and then various approaches of generating protein conformation ensembles, as well as their successes and limitations, are introduced and compared. Special emphasis is on how to generate a proper ensemble of conformation for a specific purpose, as well as the computational efficiency of various approaches. Different searching algorithms for the prediction of optimal binding poses of ligands, which are the core engines of docking programs, are accounted for. Scoring functions for evaluation of protein-ligand complexes are compared. Two end-point methods of free energy calculation, Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA) and the Linear Interaction Energy (LIE) method, are briefly reviewed. Finally, we also provide an example for the extension of the conventional protein-ligand docking algorithm for prediction of multiple binding sites and ligand translocation pathways.

[1]  Chung F Wong,et al.  Flexible ligand-flexible protein docking in protein kinase systems. , 2008, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

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

[3]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Evaluation of the FLEXX incremental construction algorithm for protein–ligand docking , 1999, Proteins.

[4]  V. Hornak,et al.  Comparison of multiple Amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters , 2006, Proteins.

[5]  Stefan Janson,et al.  Molecular docking with multi-objective Particle Swarm Optimization , 2008, Appl. Soft Comput..

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

[7]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  An Extensive Test of 14 Scoring Functions Using the PDBbind Refined Set of 800 Protein-Ligand Complexes , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[8]  D. J. Price,et al.  Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

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

[11]  Roger J.-B. Wets,et al.  Minimization by Random Search Techniques , 1981, Math. Oper. Res..

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

[13]  J. Aqvist,et al.  A new method for predicting binding affinity in computer-aided drug design. , 1994, Protein engineering.

[14]  R. Glen,et al.  Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[15]  Peter L. Freddolino,et al.  Force field bias in protein folding simulations. , 2009, Biophysical journal.

[16]  Steven W. Muchmore,et al.  Rapid Estimation of Relative Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities Using a High-Throughput Version of MM-PBSA , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[17]  V. Sobolev,et al.  Flexibility of metal binding sites in proteins on a database scale , 2005, Proteins.

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

[19]  Judith Herzfeld,et al.  Functional and shunt states of bacteriorhodopsin resolved by 250 GHz dynamic nuclear polarization–enhanced solid-state NMR , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  Shiow-Fen Hwang,et al.  SODOCK: Swarm optimization for highly flexible protein–ligand docking , 2007, J. Comput. Chem..

[21]  Jung-Hsin Lin,et al.  Optimization and Computational Evaluation of a Series of Potential Active Site Inhibitors of the V82F/I84V Drug‐resistant Mutant of HIV‐1 Protease: an Application of the Relaxed Complex Method of Structure‐based Drug Design , 2006, Chemical biology & drug design.

[22]  Julien Michel,et al.  Prediction of the water content in protein binding sites. , 2009, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[23]  Osamu Miyashita,et al.  Solution and crystal molecular dynamics simulation study of m4-cyanovirin-N mutants complexed with di-mannose. , 2009, Biophysical journal.

[24]  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..

[25]  M. Karplus,et al.  Method for estimating the configurational entropy of macromolecules , 1981 .

[26]  Steven W. Muchmore,et al.  High-Throughput Calculation of Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities: Modification and Adaptation of the MM-PBSA Protocol to Enterprise Grid Computing , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[27]  Boguslaw Stec,et al.  Sampling of the native conformational ensemble of myoglobin via structures in different crystalline environments , 2007, Proteins.

[28]  Matthew P. Repasky,et al.  Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[29]  P. Kollman,et al.  Combined molecular mechanical and continuum solvent approach (MM-PBSA/GBSA) to predict ligand binding , 2000 .

[30]  P. Hajduk,et al.  Discovering High-Affinity Ligands for Proteins: SAR by NMR , 1996, Science.

[31]  Rommie E. Amaro,et al.  An improved relaxed complex scheme for receptor flexibility in computer-aided drug design , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[33]  R Abagyan,et al.  Flexible protein–ligand docking by global energy optimization in internal coordinates , 1997, Proteins.

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

[35]  John Bradshaw,et al.  Identification of Biological Activity Profiles Using Substructural Analysis and Genetic Algorithms , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[36]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Biased probability Monte Carlo conformational searches and electrostatic calculations for peptides and proteins. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[37]  M Karplus,et al.  The contribution of cross‐links to protein stability: A normal mode analysis of the configurational entropy of the native state , 1993, Proteins.

[38]  Rudolph A. Marcus,et al.  Chemical and Electrochemical Electron-Transfer Theory , 1964 .

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

[40]  Alexandre M. J. J. Bonvin,et al.  Solvated docking: introducing water into the modelling of biomolecular complexes , 2006, Bioinform..

[41]  Jason C. Cole,et al.  Testing Assumptions and Hypotheses for Rescoring Success in Protein-Ligand Docking , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[42]  Somesh D. Sharma,et al.  Managing protein flexibility in docking and its applications. , 2009, Drug discovery today.

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

[44]  Yen-Jen Oyang,et al.  MEDock: a web server for efficient prediction of ligand binding sites based on a novel optimization algorithm , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[45]  Stewart A. Adcock,et al.  Molecular dynamics: survey of methods for simulating the activity of proteins. , 2006, Chemical reviews.

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