Performance Evaluation of 2D Fingerprint and 3D Shape Similarity Methods in Virtual Screening

Virtual screening (VS) can be accomplished in either ligand- or structure-based methods. In recent times, an increasing number of 2D fingerprint and 3D shape similarity methods have been used in ligand-based VS. To evaluate the performance of these ligand-based methods, retrospective VS was performed on a tailored directory of useful decoys (DUD). The VS performances of 14 2D fingerprints and four 3D shape similarity methods were compared. The results revealed that 2D fingerprints ECFP_2 and FCFP_4 yielded better performance than the 3D Phase Shape methods. These ligand-based methods were also compared with structure-based methods, such as Glide docking and Prime molecular mechanics generalized Born surface area rescoring, which demonstrated that both 2D fingerprint and 3D shape similarity methods could yield higher enrichment during early retrieval of active compounds. The results demonstrated the superiority of ligand-based methods over the docking-based screening in terms of both speed and hit enrichment. Therefore, considering ligand-based methods first in any VS workflow would be a wise option.

[1]  Yongbo Hu,et al.  Comparison of Several Molecular Docking Programs: Pose Prediction and Virtual Screening Accuracy , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[2]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Comparison of Topological, Shape, and Docking Methods in Virtual Screening. , 2007 .

[3]  Thomas Sander,et al.  Comparison of Ligand- and Structure-Based Virtual Screening on the DUD Data Set , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[4]  Robin Taylor,et al.  Comparing protein–ligand docking programs is difficult , 2005, Proteins.

[5]  James G. Nourse,et al.  Reoptimization of MDL Keys for Use in Drug Discovery , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[6]  P. Willett Searching techniques for databases of two- and three-dimensional chemical structures. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  B. Kuhn,et al.  Validation and use of the MM-PBSA approach for drug discovery. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  Anthony Nicholls,et al.  What do we know and when do we know it? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[9]  Qiang Zhang,et al.  Scaffold hopping through virtual screening using 2D and 3D similarity descriptors: ranking, voting, and consensus scoring. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[11]  J. Andrew Grant,et al.  Small Molecule Shape-Fingerprints , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[12]  Iosif I Vaisman,et al.  New method for protein secondary structure assignment based on a simple topological descriptor , 2005, Proteins.

[13]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Is There a Difference Between Leads and Drugs? A Historical Perspective. , 2001 .

[14]  Andreas Bender,et al.  How Similar Are Similarity Searching Methods? A Principal Component Analysis of Molecular Descriptor Space , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[15]  C. E. Peishoff,et al.  A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[16]  Y. Martin,et al.  Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity? , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[17]  John J. Irwin,et al.  Community benchmarks for virtual screening , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[18]  Ajay N. Jain Bias, reporting, and sharing: computational evaluations of docking methods , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[19]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Rapid Shape-Based Ligand Alignment and Virtual Screening Method Based on Atom/Feature-Pair Similarities and Volume Overlap Scoring , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[20]  Piotr Cieplak,et al.  Molecular dynamics and free energy analyses of cathepsin D-inhibitor interactions: insight into structure-based ligand design. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  Christine Humblet,et al.  Investigation of MM-PBSA Rescoring of Docking Poses , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[22]  Andreas Zell,et al.  Optimal assignment methods for ligand-based virtual screening , 2009, J. Cheminformatics.

[23]  Peter Willett,et al.  Similarity Searching in Databases of Three-Dimensional Chemical Structures , 1994 .

[24]  John Bradshaw,et al.  Similarity Searching Using Reduced Graphs , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[25]  Jordi Mestres,et al.  SHED: Shannon Entropy Descriptors from Topological Feature Distributions , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[26]  Niu Huang,et al.  Physics-Based Scoring of Protein-Ligand Complexes: Enrichment of Known Inhibitors in Large-Scale Virtual Screening , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[27]  Johannes H. Voigt,et al.  Cross-Docking of Inhibitors into CDK2 Structures. 2 , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[28]  Lazaros Mavridis,et al.  Comprehensive Comparison of Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Tools Against the DUD Data set Reveals Limitations of Current 3D Methods , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[29]  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.

[30]  G. Klebe Virtual ligand screening: strategies, perspectives and limitations , 2006, Drug Discovery Today.

[31]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Is There a Difference between Leads and Drugs? A Historical Perspective , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[32]  Francesca Perruccio,et al.  HPPD: Ligand- and Target-Based Virtual Screening on a Herbicide Target , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[33]  Valerie J. Gillet,et al.  Further Development of Reduced Graphs for Identifying Bioactive Compounds. , 2003 .

[34]  J. A. Grant,et al.  A shape-based 3-D scaffold hopping method and its application to a bacterial protein-protein interaction. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[35]  Diane Joseph-McCarthy Challenges of fragment screening , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[36]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Recommendations for evaluation of computational methods , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[37]  J. Irwin,et al.  Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[38]  Hongming Wang,et al.  Virtual fragment screening: an exploration of various docking and scoring protocols for fragments using Glide , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[39]  Christine Humblet,et al.  Chemical space sampling by different scoring functions and crystal structures , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[40]  Simona Distinto,et al.  Evaluation of the performance of 3D virtual screening protocols: RMSD comparisons, enrichment assessments, and decoy selection—What can we learn from earlier mistakes? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[41]  Wei Li,et al.  Identifying Novel Molecular Structures for Advanced Melanoma by Ligand-Based Virtual Screening , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[42]  Johannes H. Voigt,et al.  Cross‐Docking of Inhibitors into CDK2 Structures. Part 1. , 2008 .

[43]  David Rogers,et al.  Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[44]  Robert P Sheridan,et al.  Chemical similarity searches: when is complexity justified? , 2007, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[45]  Chris G. Kruse,et al.  Assessment of scaffold hopping efficiency by use of molecular interaction fingerprints. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[46]  D. Rogers,et al.  Using Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints with Laplacian-Modified Bayesian Analysis in High-Throughput Screening Follow-Up , 2005, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[47]  Peter Willett,et al.  Similarity Searching in Files of Three-Dimensional Chemical Structures: Analysis of the BIOSTER Database Using Two-Dimensional Fingerprints and Molecular Field Descriptors , 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[48]  Paul D Lyne,et al.  Accurate prediction of the relative potencies of members of a series of kinase inhibitors using molecular docking and MM-GBSA scoring. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[49]  Simona Distinto,et al.  How To Optimize Shape-Based Virtual Screening: Choosing the Right Query and Including Chemical Information , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[50]  William L. Jorgensen,et al.  Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[51]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  The RCSB Protein Data Bank: redesigned web site and web services , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[53]  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.

[54]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..