Short Nonbonded Contact Distances in Organic Molecules and Their Use as Atom-Clash Criteria in Conformer Validation and Searching

Short, intramolecular nonbonded contact distances from a large sample of organic molecules retrieved from the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD) have been analyzed. With the exception of the element pairs N···S, O···P, O···S, and S···S, the first percentiles of X···Y distance distributions (X, Y = C, Br, Cl, F, N, O, P, S) are well estimated by ∑vdw -0.5 Å, where ∑vdw is the sum of the Bondi van der Waals radii. The 0.1th percentiles are typically a further 0.1 Å shorter. Some 99% of well-refined organic molecules from the CSD have no nonbonded contacts shorter than the 0.1th percentile and no more than two contacts shorter than the first percentile. This can be used as the basis of an atom-clash test for validating less precise crystal-structure data, such as the geometries of protein ligands. In principle, the same test can be used in molecular modeling to identify and filter out unacceptable conformations generated in a conformational search. This is complicated by the fact that conformer generation is usually performed on molecular models with standard bond angles that are not relaxed during the search. In consequence, conformations often appear to contain untenable nonbonded contacts, which would, however, be removed by bond-angle relaxation. This is particularly likely for molecules containing conjugating substituents bonded to adjacent atoms of an aromatic ring, or on the same side of a double bond. Other molecules particularly likely to be affected are those containing rings or other bulky groups separated by a single-atom linkage, and those with the capacity to form intramolecular hydrogen bonds. The problem is greatly ameliorated by the fact that there are many ways to approximate a true conformation, leading to an increased probability that at least one of the approximations will satisfy atom-clash criteria.

[1]  Ian J Bruno,et al.  Bond lengths in organic and metal-organic compounds revisited: X-H bond lengths from neutron diffraction data. , 2010, Acta crystallographica. Section B, Structural science.

[2]  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..

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

[4]  Benjamin A. Ellingson,et al.  Conformer Generation with OMEGA: Algorithm and Validation Using High Quality Structures from the Protein Databank and Cambridge Structural Database , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[5]  Richard A. Lewis,et al.  Three-dimensional pharmacophore methods in drug discovery. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[6]  Tejender S. Thakur,et al.  Significant progress in predicting the crystal structures of small organic molecules--a report on the fourth blind test. , 2009, Acta crystallographica. Section B, Structural science.

[7]  Keith T. Butler,et al.  Toward accurate relative energy predictions of the bioactive conformation of drugs , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[8]  Richard J. Hall,et al.  Protein-Ligand Docking against Non-Native Protein Conformers , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[9]  Brian B. Masek,et al.  A knowledge-based approach to generating diverse but energetically representative ensembles of ligand conformers , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[10]  B. Kuhn,et al.  Small Molecule Conformational Preferences Derived from Crystal Structure Data. A Medicinal Chemistry Focused Analysis , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[11]  Mark S. Johnson,et al.  Generating Conformer Ensembles Using a Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[12]  Omar Haq,et al.  Torsion Angle Preference and Energetics of Small-Molecule Ligands Bound to Proteins , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[13]  Jiabo Li,et al.  CAESAR: A New Conformer Generation Algorithm Based on Recursive Buildup and Local Rotational Symmetry Consideration , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[14]  Dimitris K. Agrafiotis,et al.  Self‐organizing superimposition algorithm for conformational sampling , 2007, J. Comput. Chem..

[15]  Ovanes Mekenyan,et al.  Conformational Coverage by a Genetic Algorithm: Saturation of Conformational Space , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[16]  Jonas Boström,et al.  MIMUMBA Revisited: Torsion Angle Rules for Conformer Generation Derived from X-ray Structures , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[17]  P. Charifson,et al.  Conformational analysis of drug-like molecules bound to proteins: an extensive study of ligand reorganization upon binding. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[19]  Robert Stanton,et al.  Conformational analysis by intersection: CONAN , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..

[20]  Robin Taylor,et al.  New software for searching the Cambridge Structural Database and visualizing crystal structures. , 2002, Acta crystallographica. Section B, Structural science.

[21]  F. Allen The Cambridge Structural Database: a quarter of a million crystal structures and rising. , 2002, Acta crystallographica. Section B, Structural science.

[22]  Kenneth M. Merz,et al.  Can we separate active from inactive conformations? , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[24]  Robin Taylor,et al.  Intermolecular Nonbonded Contact Distances in Organic Crystal Structures: Comparison with Distances Expected from van der Waals Radii , 1996 .

[25]  M C Nicklaus,et al.  Conformational changes of small molecules binding to proteins. , 1995, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

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

[27]  B. Goldstein,et al.  A database study of nonbonded intramolecular sulfur-nucleophile contacts. , 1993, Acta crystallographica. Section B, Structural science.

[28]  F. Temple Burling,et al.  Computational studies of nonbonded sulfur-oxygen and selenium-oxygen interactions in the thiazole and selenazole nucleosides , 1992 .

[29]  R. Cramer,et al.  Validation of the general purpose tripos 5.2 force field , 1989 .

[30]  A. Bondi van der Waals Volumes and Radii , 1964 .