Investigating Protein-Peptide Interactions Using the Schrödinger Computational Suite.

The Schrödinger software suite contains a broad array of computational chemistry and molecular modeling tools that can be used to study the interaction of peptides with proteins. These include molecular docking using Glide and Piper, relative binding free energy predictions with FEP+, conformational searches using MacroModel and Desmond, and structural refinement using Prime and PrimeX. In this review we provide a comprehensive overview of these tools and describe their potential application in the identification and optimization of peptide ligands for proteins.

[1]  J. Berg,et al.  Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules , 2002, Nature Structural Biology.

[2]  István Kolossváry,et al.  Low‐mode conformational search elucidated: Application to C39H80 and flexible docking of 9‐deazaguanine inhibitors into PNP , 1999 .

[3]  Kai Zhu,et al.  Improved Methods for Side Chain and Loop Predictions via the Protein Local Optimization Program:  Variable Dielectric Model for Implicitly Improving the Treatment of Polarization Effects. , 2007, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[4]  Daniel Cappel,et al.  Accurate Binding Free Energy Predictions in Fragment Optimization , 2015, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[5]  Kai Zhu,et al.  Prediction of Long Loops with Embedded Secondary Structure using the Protein Local Optimization Program. , 2013, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[6]  Robert Abel,et al.  Motifs for molecular recognition exploiting hydrophobic enclosure in protein–ligand binding , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Kenneth L. Ho,et al.  Significant reduction in errors associated with nonbonded contacts in protein crystal structures: automated all-atom refinement with PrimeX , 2012, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[8]  Matthew P. Jacobson,et al.  Beyond cyclosporine A: conformation-dependent passive membrane permeabilities of cyclic peptide natural products. , 2015, Future medicinal chemistry.

[9]  Hege S. Beard,et al.  Applying Physics-Based Scoring to Calculate Free Energies of Binding for Single Amino Acid Mutations in Protein-Protein Complexes , 2013, PloS one.

[10]  Stephen R Comeau,et al.  Docking with PIPER and refinement with SDU in rounds 6–11 of CAPRI , 2007, Proteins.

[11]  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.

[12]  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.

[13]  Woody Sherman,et al.  High‐energy water sites determine peptide binding affinity and specificity of PDZ domains , 2009, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[14]  Stephen R. Comeau,et al.  PIPER: An FFT‐based protein docking program with pairwise potentials , 2006, Proteins.

[15]  Junmei Wang,et al.  Development and testing of a general amber force field , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[16]  B. Berne,et al.  Role of the active-site solvent in the thermodynamics of factor Xa ligand binding. , 2008, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[17]  R. Friesner,et al.  Long loop prediction using the protein local optimization program , 2006, Proteins.

[18]  Miklos Feher,et al.  Numerical Errors and Chaotic Behavior in Docking Simulations , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[19]  Sachdev S Sidhu,et al.  Origins of PDZ Domain Ligand Specificity , 2003, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[20]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Improved Docking of Polypeptides with Glide , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[21]  R. Friesner,et al.  The VSGB 2.0 model: A next generation energy model for high resolution protein structure modeling , 2011, Proteins.

[22]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Protein and ligand preparation: parameters, protocols, and influence on virtual screening enrichments , 2013, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[23]  R. Zhou.  Replica exchange molecular dynamics method for protein folding simulation. , 2007, Methods in molecular biology.

[24]  R. Friesner,et al.  Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[25]  S. Wold,et al.  New chemical descriptors relevant for the design of biologically active peptides. A multivariate characterization of 87 amino acids. , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[26]  Themis Lazaridis,et al.  Thermodynamics of buried water clusters at a protein-ligand binding interface. , 2006, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[27]  W. Sherman,et al.  Probing the α‐Helical Structural Stability of Stapled p53 Peptides: Molecular Dynamics Simulations and Analysis , 2010, Chemical biology & drug design.

[28]  Richard A. Friesner,et al.  Docking performance of the glide program as evaluated on the Astex and DUD datasets: a complete set of glide SP results and selected results for a new scoring function integrating WaterMap and glide , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[29]  S. Wold,et al.  Peptide quantitative structure-activity relationships, a multivariate approach. , 1987, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[30]  Cristiano Ruch Werneck Guimarães,et al.  MM-GB/SA Rescoring of Docking Poses in Structure-Based Lead Optimization , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[31]  Richard A Friesner,et al.  Progress in super long loop prediction , 2011, Proteins.

[32]  Fenglin Lv,et al.  Toward prediction of binding affinities between the MHC protein and its peptide ligands using quantitative structure-affinity relationship approach. , 2008, Protein and peptide letters.

[33]  Jiewen Zhao,et al.  Modeling the QSAR of ACE-Inhibitory Peptides with ANN and Its Applied Illustration , 2011, International journal of peptides.

[34]  Jennifer L. Knight,et al.  Accurate and reliable prediction of relative ligand binding potency in prospective drug discovery by way of a modern free-energy calculation protocol and force field. , 2015, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[35]  Nicolas Foloppe,et al.  Drug-like Bioactive Structures and Conformational Coverage with the LigPrep/ConfGen Suite: Comparison to Programs MOE and Catalyst , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[36]  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.

[37]  Jennifer L. Knight,et al.  OPLS3: A Force Field Providing Broad Coverage of Drug-like Small Molecules and Proteins. , 2016, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[38]  Woody Sherman,et al.  ConfGen: A Conformational Search Method for Efficient Generation of Bioactive Conformers , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[39]  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..

[40]  Jan H. Jensen,et al.  Very fast prediction and rationalization of pKa values for protein–ligand complexes , 2008, Proteins.

[41]  Themis Lazaridis,et al.  Computing the thermodynamic contributions of interfacial water. , 2012, Methods in molecular biology.

[42]  Olli T. Pentikäinen,et al.  MMGBSA As a Tool To Understand the Binding Affinities of Filamin-Peptide Interactions , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[43]  Seth G. N. Grant,et al.  PDZ Domain Proteins: Plug and Play! , 2003, Science's STKE.

[44]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  CHARMM general force field: A force field for drug‐like molecules compatible with the CHARMM all‐atom additive biological force fields , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[45]  Stephen R Comeau,et al.  Achieving reliability and high accuracy in automated protein docking: Cluspro, PIPER, SDU, and stability analysis in CAPRI rounds 13–19 , 2010, Proteins.

[46]  Zuojun Guo,et al.  Probing the Origin of Structural Stability of Single and Double Stapled p53 Peptide Analogs Bound to MDM2 , 2014, Chemical biology & drug design.