Docking small peptides remains a great challenge: an assessment using AutoDock Vina

There is a growing interest in the mechanisms and the prediction of how flexible peptides bind proteins, often in a highly selective and conserved manner. While both existing small-molecule docking methods and custom protocols can be used, even short peptides make difficult targets owing to their high torsional flexibility. Any benchmarking should therefore start with those. We compiled a meta-data set of 47 complexes with peptides up to five residues, based on 11 related studies from the past decade. Although their highly varying strategies and constraints preclude direct, quantitative comparisons, we still provide a comprehensive overview of the reported results, using a simple yet stringent measure: the quality of the top-scoring peptide pose. Using the entire data set, this is augmented by our own benchmark of AutoDock Vina, a freely available, fast and widely used docking tool. It particularly addresses non-expert users and was therefore implemented in a highly integrated manner. Guidelines addressing important issues such as the amount of sampling required for result reproducibility are so far lacking. Using peptide docking as an example, this is the first study to address these issues in detail. Finally, to encourage further, standardized benchmarking efforts, the compiled data set is made available in an accessible, transparent and extendable manner.

[1]  John H. Lewis,et al.  Crystal Structures of a Complexed and Peptide-Free Membrane Protein–Binding Domain: Molecular Basis of Peptide Recognition by PDZ , 1996, Cell.

[2]  Scott H. Soderling,et al.  Peptide Array X-Linking (PAX): A New Peptide-Protein Identification Approach , 2012, PloS one.

[3]  Reed B. Jacob,et al.  High-Throughput Virtual Screening Molecular Docking Software for Students and Educators , 2018 .

[4]  Nir London,et al.  Sub‐angstrom modeling of complexes between flexible peptides and globular proteins , 2010, Proteins.

[5]  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..

[6]  Yuzuru Husimi,et al.  Toward the fast blind docking of a peptide to a target protein by using a four-body statistical pseudo-potential , 2010, Comput. Biol. Chem..

[7]  D. van der Spoel,et al.  Efficient docking of peptides to proteins without prior knowledge of the binding site , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[8]  Kevin M. D'Auria,et al.  Structural and dynamic determinants of protein-peptide recognition. , 2011, Structure.

[9]  R. Hegde,et al.  The surprising complexity of signal sequences. , 2006, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[10]  Jens Meiler,et al.  Towards Ligand Docking Including Explicit Interface Water Molecules , 2013, PloS one.

[11]  Jacques Schrenzel,et al.  A de novo‐designed antimicrobial peptide with activity against multiresistant Staphylococcus aureus acting on RsbW kinase , 2013, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[12]  Max W. Chang,et al.  Virtual Screening for HIV Protease Inhibitors: A Comparison of AutoDock 4 and Vina , 2010, PloS one.

[13]  Xiaohua Zhang,et al.  Message passing interface and multithreading hybrid for parallel molecular docking of large databases on petascale high performance computing machines , 2013, J. Comput. Chem..

[14]  Dima Kozakov,et al.  Detection of peptide‐binding sites on protein surfaces: The first step toward the modeling and targeting of peptide‐mediated interactions , 2013, Proteins.

[15]  Emil Alexov,et al.  The role of protonation states in ligand-receptor recognition and binding. , 2013, Current pharmaceutical design.

[16]  Hermann Schindelin,et al.  Studies on peptide:N-glycanase–p97 interaction suggest that p97 phosphorylation modulates endoplasmic reticulum-associated degradation , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Csaba Hetényi,et al.  Toward prediction of functional protein pockets using blind docking and pocket search algorithms , 2011, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[18]  Nir London,et al.  The structural basis of peptide-protein binding strategies. , 2010, Structure.

[19]  Pierre Tufféry,et al.  PEP-SiteFinder: a tool for the blind identification of peptide binding sites on protein surfaces , 2014, Nucleic Acids Res..

[20]  Chee Keong Kwoh,et al.  QuickVina: Accelerating AutoDock Vina Using Gradient-Based Heuristics for Global Optimization , 2012, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics.

[21]  Andrew J. Wilson,et al.  Inhibition of α-helix-mediated protein-protein interactions using designed molecules. , 2013, Nature chemistry.

[22]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[23]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  PeptiSite: a structural database of peptide binding sites in 4D. , 2014, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[24]  J. Richardson,et al.  Asparagine and glutamine: using hydrogen atom contacts in the choice of side-chain amide orientation. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[25]  D. Craik,et al.  The Future of Peptide‐based Drugs , 2013, Chemical biology & drug design.

[26]  J. Fox Antimicrobial peptides stage a comeback , 2013, Nature Biotechnology.

[27]  Nir London,et al.  Rosetta FlexPepDock ab-initio: Simultaneous Folding, Docking and Refinement of Peptides onto Their Receptors , 2011, PloS one.

[28]  Iris Antes,et al.  DynaDock: A new molecular dynamics‐based algorithm for protein–peptide docking including receptor flexibility , 2010, Proteins.

[29]  Joseph Audie,et al.  Advances in the Prediction of Protein–Peptide Binding Affinities: Implications for Peptide‐Based Drug Discovery , 2013, Chemical biology & drug design.

[30]  Thomas Earnest,et al.  Structural basis for recognition of acidic-cluster dileucine sequence by GGA1 , 2002, Nature.

[31]  Joseph Audie,et al.  Recent work in the development and application of protein-peptide docking. , 2012, Future medicinal chemistry.

[32]  L. Kavraki,et al.  DINC: A new AutoDock-based protocol for docking large ligands , 2013, BMC Structural Biology.

[33]  S. Boddu,et al.  Approaches for enhancing oral bioavailability of peptides and proteins. , 2013, International journal of pharmaceutics.

[34]  M. Khrestchatisky,et al.  Synthetic therapeutic peptides: science and market. , 2010, Drug discovery today.

[35]  David Neuhaus,et al.  Solution NMR study of the interaction between NTF2 and nucleoporin FxFG repeats. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[36]  Joost Schymkowitz,et al.  Protein-peptide complex prediction through fragment interaction patterns. , 2013, Structure.

[37]  Jacob D. Durrant,et al.  NNScore 2.0: A Neural-Network Receptor–Ligand Scoring Function , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[38]  Bingding Huang,et al.  MetaPocket: a meta approach to improve protein ligand binding site prediction. , 2009, Omics : a journal of integrative biology.

[39]  Joseph A. Rothnagel,et al.  Emerging evidence for functional peptides encoded by short open reading frames , 2014, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[40]  Aidan Budd,et al.  Short linear motifs: ubiquitous and functionally diverse protein interaction modules directing cell regulation. , 2014, Chemical reviews.

[41]  D. R. Holland,et al.  Structural analysis of zinc substitutions in the active site of thermolysin , 1995, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[42]  Antonio Quesada,et al.  Oligopeptides as Biomarkers of Cyanobacterial Subpopulations. Toward an Understanding of Their Biological Role , 2014, Toxins.

[43]  J Andrew McCammon,et al.  AutoGrow 3.0: an improved algorithm for chemically tractable, semi-automated protein inhibitor design. , 2013, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[44]  P. Arun Prasad,et al.  A new peptide docking strategy using a mean field technique with mutually orthogonal Latin square sampling , 2008, Journal of computer-aided molecular design.

[45]  Alexey Bochkarev,et al.  Structural basis for molecular recognition and presentation of histone H3 By WDR5 , 2006, The EMBO journal.

[46]  Gert Vriend,et al.  Re-refinement from deposited X-ray data can deliver improved models for most PDB entries , 2009, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[47]  María Martín,et al.  Activities at the Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

[48]  Burak Erman,et al.  VitAL: Viterbi Algorithm for de novo Peptide Design , 2010, PloS one.

[49]  Robert B. Russell,et al.  PepSite: prediction of peptide-binding sites from protein surfaces , 2012, Nucleic Acids Res..

[50]  Premendu P. Mathur,et al.  PepBind: A Comprehensive Database and Computational Tool for Analysis of Protein–peptide Interactions , 2013, Genom. Proteom. Bioinform..

[51]  S. Rüdiger,et al.  Studying protein-protein interactions using peptide arrays. , 2011, Chemical Society reviews.

[52]  Austin G. Meyer,et al.  PeptideBuilder: A simple Python library to generate model peptides , 2013, PeerJ.

[53]  Julie Klein,et al.  Identification of Urinary Peptide Biomarkers Associated with Rheumatoid Arthritis , 2014, PLoS ONE.

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

[55]  Juan Pablo Couso,et al.  Peptides Encoded by Short ORFs Control Development and Define a New Eukaryotic Gene Family , 2007, PLoS biology.

[56]  Alexandre M. J. J. Bonvin,et al.  A Unified Conformational Selection and Induced Fit Approach to Protein-Peptide Docking , 2013, PloS one.

[57]  G J Williams,et al.  The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. , 1977, Journal of molecular biology.

[58]  Miklos Feher,et al.  Effect of Input Differences on the Results of Docking Calculations , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[59]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Improved Docking of Polypeptides with Glide , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[60]  Laura Frigotto,et al.  In vitro methods for peptide display and their applications. , 2011, Briefings in functional genomics.

[61]  Nir London,et al.  Peptide docking and structure-based characterization of peptide binding: from knowledge to know-how. , 2013, Current opinion in structural biology.

[62]  António J. M. Ribeiro,et al.  Protein-ligand docking in the new millennium--a retrospective of 10 years in the field. , 2013, Current medicinal chemistry.

[63]  Andrew J. Wilson,et al.  Inhibition of protein-protein interactions using designed molecules. , 2009, Chemical Society reviews.

[64]  Alexander M. Spokoyny,et al.  Rapid Flow‐Based Peptide Synthesis , 2014, Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology.

[65]  Xavier Barril,et al.  rDock: A Fast, Versatile and Open Source Program for Docking Ligands to Proteins and Nucleic Acids , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[66]  David Baker,et al.  Recapitulation and design of protein binding peptide structures and sequences. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[67]  Paul Labute,et al.  Variability in docking success rates due to dataset preparation , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.