AutoDock Vina 1.2.0: New Docking Methods, Expanded Force Field, and Python Bindings

AutoDock Vina is arguably one of the fastest and most widely used open-source programs for molecular docking. However, compared to other programs in the AutoDock Suite, it lacks support for modeling specific features such as macrocycles or explicit water molecules. Here, we describe the implementation of this functionality in AutoDock Vina 1.2.0. Additionally, AutoDock Vina 1.2.0 supports the AutoDock4.2 scoring function, simultaneous docking of multiple ligands, and a batch mode for docking a large number of ligands. Furthermore, we implemented Python bindings to facilitate scripting and the development of docking workflows. This work is an effort toward the unification of the features of the AutoDock4 and AutoDock Vina programs. The source code is available at https://github.com/ccsb-scripps/AutoDock-Vina.

[1]  K. Jarrod Millman,et al.  Array programming with NumPy , 2020, Nat..

[2]  Shuai Liu,et al.  D3R grand challenge 2015: Evaluation of protein–ligand pose and affinity predictions , 2016, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[3]  Andreas Koch,et al.  D3R Grand Challenge 4: prospective pose prediction of BACE1 ligands with AutoDock-GPU , 2019, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[4]  Michael M. Mysinger,et al.  Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E): Better Ligands and Decoys for Better Benchmarking , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[5]  Cheng Wang,et al.  Improving scoring‐docking‐screening powers of protein–ligand scoring functions using random forest , 2017, J. Comput. Chem..

[6]  David M. Beazley,et al.  SWIG: An Easy to Use Tool for Integrating Scripting Languages with C and C++ , 1996, Tcl/Tk Workshop.

[7]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  A semiempirical free energy force field with charge‐based desolvation , 2007, J. Comput. Chem..

[8]  Lin-Li Li,et al.  ID-Score: A New Empirical Scoring Function Based on a Comprehensive Set of Descriptors Related to Protein-Ligand Interactions , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[9]  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.

[10]  et al.,et al.  Jupyter Notebooks - a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows , 2016, ELPUB.

[11]  Stefano Forli,et al.  Covalent docking using autodock: Two‐point attractor and flexible side chain methods , 2016, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[12]  Stefano Forli,et al.  AutoDock Bias: improving binding mode prediction and virtual screening using known protein-ligand interactions , 2019, Bioinform..

[13]  Thomas Gaillard,et al.  Evaluation of AutoDock and AutoDock Vina on the CASF-2013 Benchmark , 2018, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[14]  Michael K Gilson,et al.  Grid inhomogeneous solvation theory: hydration structure and thermodynamics of the miniature receptor cucurbit[7]uril. , 2012, The Journal of chemical physics.

[15]  Wes McKinney,et al.  Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python , 2010, SciPy.

[16]  T. Lazaridis.  Inhomogeneous Fluid Approach to Solvation Thermodynamics. 1. Theory , 1998 .

[17]  R. Woods,et al.  Vina-Carb: Improving Glycosidic Angles during Carbohydrate Docking. , 2016, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[18]  Themis Lazaridis,et al.  Inhomogeneous Fluid Approach to Solvation Thermodynamics. 2. Applications to Simple Fluids , 1998 .

[19]  Suman Sirimulla,et al.  AutoDock VinaXB: implementation of XBSF, new empirical halogen bond scoring function, into AutoDock Vina , 2016, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[20]  Song Liu,et al.  A knowledge-based energy function for protein-ligand, protein-protein, and protein-DNA complexes. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Macrocycle modeling in ICM: benchmarking and evaluation in D3R Grand Challenge 4 , 2019, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[22]  Minghao Yin,et al.  EDock: blind protein–ligand docking by replica-exchange monte carlo simulation , 2020, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[23]  Rodrigo Quiroga,et al.  Vinardo: A Scoring Function Based on Autodock Vina Improves Scoring, Docking, and Virtual Screening , 2016, PloS one.

[24]  Yurii S Moroz,et al.  ZINC20 - A Free Ultralarge-Scale Chemical Database for Ligand Discovery , 2020, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[25]  Arthur J. Olson,et al.  AutoDock4Zn: An Improved AutoDock Force Field for Small-Molecule Docking to Zinc Metalloproteins , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[26]  K. Wüthrich,et al.  Directional Phosphorylation and Nuclear Transport of the Splicing Factor SRSF1 Is Regulated by an RNA Recognition Motif. , 2016, Journal of molecular biology.

[27]  Guido van Rossum,et al.  Python Programming Language , 2007, USENIX Annual Technical Conference.

[28]  Stefano Moro,et al.  DockBench: An Integrated Informatic Platform Bridging the Gap between the Robust Validation of Docking Protocols and Virtual Screening Simulations , 2015, Molecules.

[29]  Douglas R. Houston,et al.  Consensus Docking: Improving the Reliability of Docking in a Virtual Screening Context , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[30]  William J. Allen,et al.  DOCK 6: Impact of new features and current docking performance , 2015, J. Comput. Chem..

[31]  M. Sanner,et al.  Docking flexible cyclic peptides with AutoDock CrankPep. , 2019, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[32]  Leonardo Solis-Vasquez,et al.  Accelerating AutoDock4 with GPUs and Gradient-Based Local Search. , 2021, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[33]  Luhua Lai,et al.  Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[34]  Arthur J. Olson,et al.  AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[35]  Ruth Huey,et al.  Computational protein–ligand docking and virtual drug screening with the AutoDock suite , 2016, Nature Protocols.

[36]  P Willett,et al.  Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[37]  David Ryan Koes,et al.  Lessons Learned in Empirical Scoring with smina from the CSAR 2011 Benchmarking Exercise , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[38]  Shigenori Tanaka,et al.  AutoDock-GIST: Incorporating Thermodynamics of Active-Site Water into Scoring Function for Accurate Protein-Ligand Docking , 2016, Molecules.

[39]  John D. Hunter,et al.  Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment , 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering.

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

[41]  Andreas Koch,et al.  Comparison of affinity ranking using AutoDock-GPU and MM-GBSA scores for BACE-1 inhibitors in the D3R Grand Challenge 4 , 2019, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[42]  Yaoqi Zhou,et al.  DLIGAND2: an improved knowledge-based energy function for protein–ligand interactions using the distance-scaled, finite, ideal-gas reference state , 2019, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[43]  Trung Hai Nguyen,et al.  Autodock Vina Adopts More Accurate Binding Poses but Autodock4 Forms Better Binding Affinity , 2019, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[44]  U. Singh,et al.  A NEW FORCE FIELD FOR MOLECULAR MECHANICAL SIMULATION OF NUCLEIC ACIDS AND PROTEINS , 1984 .

[45]  Sérgio F. Sousa,et al.  Comparing AutoDock and Vina in Ligand/Decoy Discrimination for Virtual Screening , 2019, Applied Sciences.

[46]  Jian Li,et al.  Structural Biology-Inspired Discovery of Novel KRAS-PDEδ Inhibitors. , 2017, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[47]  Liliane Mouawad,et al.  Benchmark of four popular virtual screening programs: construction of the active/decoy dataset remains a major determinant of measured performance , 2016, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[48]  Maurizio Botta,et al.  Lennard-Jones Potential and Dummy Atom Settings to Overcome the AUTODOCK Limitation in Treating Flexible Ring Systems , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[49]  Huanwang Yang,et al.  D3R grand challenge 4: blind prediction of protein–ligand poses, affinity rankings, and relative binding free energies , 2020, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[50]  Stefano Forli,et al.  A force field with discrete displaceable waters and desolvation entropy for hydrated ligand docking. , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[51]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  AutoDockFR: Advances in Protein-Ligand Docking with Explicitly Specified Binding Site Flexibility , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[52]  Chee Keong Kwoh,et al.  Fast, accurate, and reliable molecular docking with QuickVina 2 , 2015, Bioinform..

[53]  Ajay N. Jain.  Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.