A novel and efficient ligand-based virtual screening approach using the HWZ scoring function and an enhanced shape-density model

In this work, we extend our previous ligand shape-based virtual screening approach by using the scoring function Hamza–Wei–Zhan (HWZ) score and an enhanced molecular shape-density model for the ligands. The performance of the method has been tested against the 40 targets in the Database of Useful Decoys and compared with the performance of our previous HWZ score method. The virtual screening results using the novel ligand shape-based approach demonstrated a favorable improvement (area under the receiver operator characteristics curve AUC = .89 ± .02) and effectiveness (hit rate HR1% = 53.0% ± 6.3 and HR10% = 71.1% ± 4.9). The comparison of the overall performance of our ligand shape-based method with the highest ligand shape-based virtual screening approach using the data fusion of multi queries showed that our strategy takes into account deeper the chemical information of the set of active ligands. Furthermore, the results indicated that our method are suitable for virtual screening and yields superior prediction accuracy than the other study derived from the data fusion using five queries. Therefore, our novel ligand shape-based screening method constitutes a robust and efficient approach to the 3D similarity screening of small compounds and open the door to a whole new approach to drug design by implementing the method in the structure-based virtual screening.

[1]  Rainer E. Martin,et al.  Ligand identification for G-protein-coupled receptors: a lead generation perspective. , 2004, Current opinion in chemical biology.

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

[3]  C. Mura,et al.  Oxyanion-mediated inhibition of serine proteases. , 1998, Biochemistry.

[4]  J. Andrew Grant,et al.  A fast method of molecular shape comparison: A simple application of a Gaussian description of molecular shape , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

[5]  P. Willett,et al.  Comparison of topological descriptors for similarity-based virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. , 2004, Organic & biomolecular chemistry.

[6]  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.

[7]  Chaok Seok,et al.  Rotational superposition and least squares: The SVD and quaternions approaches yield identical results. Reply to the preceding comment by G. Kneller , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[8]  Dane Vasilescu,et al.  Molecular similarity in aminothiol radioprotectors: A Randić graph approach , 1987 .

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

[10]  D. Rouvray Predicting chemistry from topology. , 1986, Scientific American.

[11]  S. Sakkiah,et al.  Discovery of potential pancreatic cholesterol esterase inhibitors using pharmacophore modelling, virtual screening, and optimization studies , 2011, Journal of enzyme inhibition and medicinal chemistry.

[12]  V. Vand A simplified method of steepest descents , 1951 .

[13]  Mark S. Johnson,et al.  ShaEP: Molecular Overlay Based on Shape and Electrostatic Potential , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[14]  Jérôme Hert,et al.  Comparison of Fingerprint-Based Methods for Virtual Screening Using Multiple Bioactive Reference Structures , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[15]  Jérôme Hert,et al.  New Methods for Ligand-Based Virtual Screening: Use of Data Fusion and Machine Learning to Enhance the Effectiveness of Similarity Searching , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[17]  D. Diller,et al.  Kinases, homology models, and high throughput docking. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  Charles F. F. Karney Quaternions in molecular modeling. , 2005, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[19]  Jianjun Bi,et al.  Knowledge-based virtual screening of HLA-A*0201-restricted CD8+ T-cell epitope peptides from herpes simplex virus genome. , 2011, Journal of theoretical biology.

[20]  Christopher I. Bayly,et al.  Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the "Early Recognition" Problem , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[21]  Paul G. Mezey,et al.  Topological shape analysis of chain molecules: An application of the GSTE principle , 1993 .

[22]  M. Murcko,et al.  Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[23]  Jonas Boström,et al.  Assessing the performance of OMEGA with respect to retrieving bioactive conformations. , 2003, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[24]  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..

[25]  Chang-Guo Zhan,et al.  Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Approach Using a New Scoring Function , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[26]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Ligand-based structural hypotheses for virtual screening. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[27]  Spyridon Kamvissis,et al.  On the Method of Steepest Descent , 2005 .

[28]  Jacob D. Durrant,et al.  CrystalDock: A Novel Approach to Fragment-Based Drug Design , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[29]  Xiaofeng Liu,et al.  SHAFTS: A Hybrid Approach for 3D Molecular Similarity Calculation. 1. Method and Assessment of Virtual Screening , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[30]  Henrik Boström,et al.  Improving structure-based virtual screening by multivariate analysis of scoring data. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[31]  Nian Wang,et al.  Discovery of novel SecA inhibitors of Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus by structure based design. , 2011, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

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

[33]  Edward E. Hodgkin,et al.  Molecular similarity based on electrostatic potential and electric field , 1987 .

[34]  K. Dill,et al.  Using quaternions to calculate RMSD , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[35]  J. Pin,et al.  Virtual screening workflow development guided by the "receiver operating characteristic" curve approach. Application to high-throughput docking on metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 4. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[36]  Gustavo A. Arteca,et al.  A complete shape characterization for molecular charge densities represented by Gaussian‐type functions , 1991 .

[37]  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..

[38]  Christopher R. Corbeil,et al.  Docking Ligands into Flexible and Solvated Macromolecules. 2. Development and Application of Fitted 1.5 to the Virtual Screening of Potential HCV Polymerase Inhibitors , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[39]  James D. Murray Method of steepest descents , 1984 .

[40]  M. Randic Characterization of molecular branching , 1975 .

[41]  J. A. Grant,et al.  A Gaussian Description of Molecular Shape , 1995 .

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

[43]  D J Rogers,et al.  A Computer Program for Classifying Plants. , 1960, Science.

[44]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Virtual screening and fast automated docking methods. , 2002, Drug discovery today.

[45]  A. Good,et al.  High-throughput and virtual screening: core lead discovery technologies move towards integration. , 2000, Drug discovery today.

[46]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  How Does Consensus Scoring Work for Virtual Library Screening? An Idealized Computer Experiment , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[47]  E. A. Fox,et al.  Combining the Evidence of Multiple Query Representations for Information Retrieval , 1995, Inf. Process. Manag..

[48]  D. Frank Hsu,et al.  Comparing Rank and Score Combination Methods for Data Fusion in Information Retrieval , 2005, Information Retrieval.

[49]  David J. Wild,et al.  Grand challenges for cheminformatics , 2009, J. Cheminformatics.

[50]  Milan Randic,et al.  Nonempirical approach to structure–activity studies† , 1984 .

[51]  Richard M. Jackson,et al.  LigMatch: A Multiple Structure-Based Ligand Matching Method for 3D Virtual Screening , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[52]  Nicolas Moitessier,et al.  Docking Ligands into Flexible and Solvated Macromolecules. 4. Are Popular Scoring Functions Accurate for this Class of Proteins? , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[53]  Andrew R. Leach,et al.  A comparison of the pharmacophore identification programs: Catalyst, DISCO and GASP , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[54]  H. L. Steinmetz,et al.  USING THE METHOD OF STEEPEST DESCENT , 1966 .

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

[56]  Chang-Guo Zhan,et al.  Novel human mPGES-1 inhibitors identified through structure-based virtual screening. , 2011, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[57]  Paul B. Kantor,et al.  Predicting the effectiveness of naïve data fusion on the basis of system characteristics , 2000, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[58]  David J. Diller,et al.  Use of Catalyst Pharmacophore Models for Screening of Large Combinatorial Libraries , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..