Detailed analysis of grid‐based molecular docking: A case study of CDOCKER—A CHARMm‐based MD docking algorithm

The influence of various factors on the accuracy of protein‐ligand docking is examined. The factors investigated include the role of a grid representation of protein‐ligand interactions, the initial ligand conformation and orientation, the sampling rate of the energy hyper‐surface, and the final minimization. A representative docking method is used to study these factors, namely, CDOCKER, a molecular dynamics (MD) simulated‐annealing‐based algorithm. A major emphasis in these studies is to compare the relative performance and accuracy of various grid‐based approximations to explicit all‐atom force field calculations. In these docking studies, the protein is kept rigid while the ligands are treated as fully flexible and a final minimization step is used to refine the docked poses. A docking success rate of 74% is observed when an explicit all‐atom representation of the protein (full force field) is used, while a lower accuracy of 66–76% is observed for grid‐based methods. All docking experiments considered a 41‐member protein‐ligand validation set. A significant improvement in accuracy (76 vs. 66%) for the grid‐based docking is achieved if the explicit all‐atom force field is used in a final minimization step to refine the docking poses. Statistical analysis shows that even lower‐accuracy grid‐based energy representations can be effectively used when followed with full force field minimization. The results of these grid‐based protocols are statistically indistinguishable from the detailed atomic dockings and provide up to a sixfold reduction in computation time. For the test case examined here, improving the docking accuracy did not necessarily enhance the ability to estimate binding affinities using the docked structures. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem 13: 1549–1562, 2003

[1]  H Brandstetter,et al.  Enzyme flexibility, solvent and 'weak' interactions characterize thrombin-ligand interactions: implications for drug design. , 1996, Structure.

[2]  C L Brooks,et al.  Ligand-protein database: linking protein-ligand complex structures to binding data. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[3]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Algorithms for Clustering Data , 1988 .

[4]  David J. Diller,et al.  A critical evaluation of several global optimization algorithms for the purpose of molecular docking , 1999 .

[5]  Charles L. Brooks,et al.  Assessing energy functions for flexible docking , 1998 .

[6]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Flexible ligand docking: A multistep strategy approach , 1999, Proteins.

[7]  P. Kollman,et al.  Encyclopedia of computational chemistry , 1998 .

[8]  Y. Martin,et al.  A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[9]  Gennady Verkhivker,et al.  Deciphering common failures in molecular docking of ligand-protein complexes , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[10]  Paul A. Herzberg,et al.  Principles of Statistics , 1983 .

[11]  Pieter F. W. Stouten,et al.  A molecular mechanics/grid method for evaluation of ligand–receptor interactions , 1995, J. Comput. Chem..

[12]  M J Sternberg,et al.  New algorithm to model protein-protein recognition based on surface complementarity. Applications to antibody-antigen docking. , 1992, Journal of molecular biology.

[13]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[14]  D. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing , 1990, Proteins.

[15]  Nicholas E. Geacintov and,et al.  Abstracts, American Chemical Society Division of Chemical Toxicology, 224th ACS National Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, August 18−22, 2002 , 2002 .

[16]  Harold A. Scheraga,et al.  B‐spline method for energy minimization in grid‐based molecular mechanics calculations , 1998 .

[17]  M. Vieth,et al.  DoMCoSAR: a novel approach for establishing the docking mode that is consistent with the structure-activity relationship. Application to HIV-1 protease inhibitors and VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  T. Halgren,et al.  A priori prediction of activity for HIV-1 protease inhibitors employing energy minimization in the active site. , 1995, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[19]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Automated docking with grid‐based energy evaluation , 1992 .

[20]  J M Blaney,et al.  A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. , 1982, Journal of molecular biology.

[21]  K. Tappura,et al.  A new soft‐core potential function for molecular dynamics applied to the prediction of protein loop conformations , 2000 .

[22]  M. Karplus,et al.  Functionality maps of binding sites: A multiple copy simultaneous search method , 1991, Proteins.

[23]  Didier Rognan,et al.  ConsDock: A new program for the consensus analysis of protein–ligand interactions , 2002, Proteins.

[24]  H. Broughton,et al.  A method for including protein flexibility in protein-ligand docking: improving tools for database mining and virtual screening. , 2000, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[25]  C. Brooks,et al.  From folding theories to folding proteins: a review and assessment of simulation studies of protein folding and unfolding. , 2001, Annual review of physical chemistry.

[26]  M. Gilson,et al.  A hierarchical method for generating low‐energy conformers of a protein‐ligand complex , 1998, Proteins.

[27]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Comparison of Automatic Three-Dimensional Model Builders Using 639 X-ray Structures , 1994, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[28]  Jonathan D. Hirst,et al.  Assessing search strategies for flexible docking , 1998 .

[29]  P. Schleyer Encyclopedia of computational chemistry , 1998 .

[30]  Gareth Jones,et al.  A genetic algorithm for flexible molecular overlay and pharmacophore elucidation , 1995, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[31]  M. Karplus,et al.  CHARMM: A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations , 1983 .

[32]  A. di Nola,et al.  Docking of flexible ligands to flexible receptors in solution by molecular dynamics simulation , 1999, Proteins.

[33]  F. Momany,et al.  Validation of the general purpose QUANTA ®3.2/CHARMm® force field , 1992 .

[34]  M. Karplus,et al.  Proteins: A Theoretical Perspective of Dynamics, Structure, and Thermodynamics , 1988 .

[35]  D. E. Clark,et al.  Flexible docking using tabu search and an empirical estimate of binding affinity , 1998, Proteins.

[36]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[37]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Protein docking and complementarity. , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[38]  D. Rognan,et al.  Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.