pKa based protonation states and microspecies for protein–ligand docking

In this paper we present our reworked approach to generate ligand protonation states with our structure preparation tool SPORES (Structure PrOtonation and REcognition System). SPORES can be used for the preprocessing of proteins and protein–ligand complexes as e.g. taken from the Protein Data Bank as well as for the setup of 3D ligand databases. It automatically assigns atom and bond types, generates different protonation, tautomeric states as well as different stereoisomers. In the revised version, pKa calculations with the ChemAxon software MARVIN are used either to determine the likeliness of a combinatorial generated protonation state or to determine the titrable atoms used in the combinatorial approach. Additionally, the MARVIN software is used to predict microspecies distributions of ligand molecules. Docking studies were performed with our recently introduced program PLANTS (Protein–Ligand ANT System) on all protomers resulting from the three different selection methods for the well established CCDC/ASTEX clean data set demonstrating the usefulness of especially the latter approach.

[1]  Rodger F. Henry.  The effects of tautomerism on the nature of molecules in the solid state , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[2]  Richard D. Cramer,et al.  Tautomers and topomers: challenging the uncertainties of direct physicochemical modeling , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[3]  C. Venkatachalam,et al.  LigandFit: a novel method for the shape-directed rapid docking of ligands to protein active sites. , 2003, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[4]  Andreas Klamt,et al.  Some conclusions regarding the predictions of tautomeric equilibria in solution based on the SAMPL2 challenge , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[5]  William R. Pitt,et al.  Annular tautomerism: experimental observations and quantum mechanics calculations , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[6]  William R. Porter,et al.  Warfarin: history, tautomerism and activity , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[8]  David Calkins,et al.  Towards the comprehensive, rapid, and accurate prediction of the favorable tautomeric states of drug-like molecules in aqueous solution , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[9]  Gerd Folkers,et al.  Tautomerism in Computer‐Aided Drug Design , 2003, Journal of receptor and signal transduction research.

[10]  Thomas E. Exner,et al.  Influence of Protonation, Tautomeric, and Stereoisomeric States on Protein-Ligand Docking Results , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[11]  Antti Poso,et al.  The Effect of Ligand-Based Tautomer and Protomer Prediction on Structure-Based Virtual Screening , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[12]  Alan R. Katritzky,et al.  Tautomerism in drug discovery , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[13]  Timothy Clark,et al.  Tautomers and reference 3D-structures: the orphans of in silico drug design , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[14]  Thomas Stützle,et al.  An ant colony optimization approach to flexible protein–ligand docking , 2007, Swarm Intelligence.

[15]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy , 2004, Proteins.

[16]  P. Labute.  proteins STRUCTURE O FUNCTION O BIOINFORMATICS Protonate3D: Assignment of ionization , 2013 .

[17]  Yvonne C. Martin,et al.  Let’s not forget tautomers , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[18]  Wendy A. Warr,et al.  Tautomerism in chemical information management systems , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[19]  Thomas Stützle,et al.  Empirical Scoring Functions for Advanced Protein-Ligand Docking with PLANTS , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[20]  Maciej Haranczyk,et al.  Combinatorial–computational–chemoinformatics (C3) approach to finding and analyzing low-energy tautomers , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[21]  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.

[22]  Thomas Stützle,et al.  PLANTS: Application of Ant Colony Optimization to Structure-Based Drug Design , 2006, ANTS Workshop.

[23]  Wolf-Dietrich Ihlenfeldt,et al.  Tautomerism in large databases , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[24]  John J Irwin,et al.  Here Be Dragons: Docking and Screening in an Uncharted Region of Chemical Space , 2005, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[25]  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.

[26]  Maria Kontoyianni,et al.  Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[27]  Yvonne C. Martin.  Tautomerism, Hammett σ, and QSAR , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[28]  Robin Taylor,et al.  A new test set for validating predictions of protein–ligand interaction , 2002, Proteins.

[29]  Roger A. Sayle,et al.  So you think you understand tautomerism? , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[30]  Miklos Feher,et al.  Effect of Input Differences on the Results of Docking Calculations , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[31]  Christopher R. Corbeil,et al.  Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go , 2008, British journal of pharmacology.