Rescoring ligand docking poses.

The ranking of ligand docking poses according to certain scoring systems to identify the best fit is the most important step in virtual database screening for drug discovery. By focusing on method development strategy, this review provides possibilities for constructing rescoring approaches based on an overview of recent developments in the field. These developments can be classified into three categories. The first category involves a scaling approach that employs a factor to scale the primary scoring function. These scaling factors are defined with respect to the geometrical match between the location of a ligand and the target binding site, or defined according to a molecular weight distribution consistent with the empirical range of molecular weights of drug-like compounds. The second category involves consensus scoring approaches that use multiple scoring functions to rank the ligand poses retained in a docking procedure, based on the preliminary ranking according to a primary scoring function. The final category involves the addition of selected accuracy-oriented energy terms, such as the solvent effect and quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics treatments.

[1]  William Seibel,et al.  Theoretical and practical considerations in virtual screening: a beaten field? , 2008, Current medicinal chemistry.

[2]  David A Pearlman,et al.  FURSMASA: A new approach to rapid scoring functions that uses a MD‐averaged potential energy grid and a solvent‐accessible surface area term with parameters GA fit to experimental data , 2008, Proteins.

[3]  Charles L Brooks,et al.  Validating CHARMM parameters and exploring charge distribution rules in structure-based drug design. , 2009, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[4]  Zhihai Liu,et al.  Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on a Diverse Test Set , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[5]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  Consideration of Molecular Weight during Compound Selection in Virtual Target-Based Database Screening , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[6]  Xicheng Wang,et al.  An effective docking strategy for virtual screening based on multi-objective optimization algorithm , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[7]  Olivier Michielin,et al.  Fourier transform convolution integrals applied to generalized Born molecular volume , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[8]  David G. Lloyd,et al.  Unbiasing Scoring Functions: A New Normalization and Rescoring Strategy , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[9]  C. Venkatachalam,et al.  LigScore: a novel scoring function for predicting binding affinities. , 2005, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[10]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  POSE SCALING: GEOMETRICAL ASSESSMENT OF LIGAND BINDING POSES , 2008 .

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

[12]  Anna Vulpetti,et al.  Assessment of Docking Poses: Interactions-Based Accuracy Classification (IBAC) versus Crystal Structure Deviations. , 2004 .

[13]  Lianqing Zheng,et al.  On the simulated scaling based free energy simulations: Adaptive optimization of the scaling parameter intervals. , 2008, The Journal of chemical physics.

[14]  Reiji Teramoto,et al.  Consensus Scoring with Feature Selection for Structure-Based Virtual Screening , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[15]  Huan-Xiang Zhou Calculation of free-energy differences and potentials of mean force by a multi-energy gap method. , 2008, The Journal of chemical physics.

[16]  Jennifer L. Knight,et al.  k-Dynamics Free Energy Simulation Methods , 2009 .

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

[18]  Reiji Teramoto,et al.  Supervised Consensus Scoring for Docking and Virtual Screening , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[19]  Chao-Yie Yang,et al.  Importance of ligand reorganization free energy in protein-ligand binding-affinity prediction. , 2009, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[20]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Protein-Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculation by the Smooth Reaction Path Generation (SRPG) Method , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[21]  Thom Vreven,et al.  Combining Quantum Mechanics Methods with Molecular Mechanics Methods in ONIOM. , 2006, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[22]  Dan C. Fara,et al.  Lead-like, drug-like or “Pub-like”: how different are they? , 2007, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[23]  Jacob Kongsted,et al.  How accurate are continuum solvation models for drug-like molecules? , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[24]  Urs Haberthür,et al.  FACTS: Fast analytical continuum treatment of solvation , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[25]  Hyung-June Woo Calculation of absolute protein-ligand binding constants with the molecular dynamics free energy perturbation method. , 2008, Methods in molecular biology.

[26]  Z. Deng,et al.  Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[27]  E. Shakhnovich,et al.  SMoG: de Novo Design Method Based on Simple, Fast, and Accurate Free Energy Estimates. 1. Methodology and Supporting Evidence , 1996 .

[28]  E. Freire,et al.  How Much Binding Affinity Can be Gained by Filling a Cavity? , 2010, Chemical biology & drug design.

[29]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  Identification and validation of human DNA ligase inhibitors using computer-aided drug design. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[30]  Benoît Roux,et al.  Computation of binding free energy with molecular dynamics and grand canonical Monte Carlo simulations. , 2008, The Journal of chemical physics.

[31]  Ting Wang,et al.  Comparative binding energy analysis for binding affinity and target selectivity prediction , 2010, Proteins.

[32]  G. Degliesposti,et al.  Binding Estimation after Refinement, a New Automated Procedure for the Refinement and Rescoring of Docked Ligands in Virtual Screening , 2009, Chemical biology & drug design.

[33]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  M-score: a knowledge-based potential scoring function accounting for protein atom mobility. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[34]  Benoît Roux,et al.  Computation of Absolute Hydration and Binding Free Energy with Free Energy Perturbation Distributed Replica-Exchange Molecular Dynamics (FEP/REMD). , 2009, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[35]  D. Case,et al.  Rescoring docking hit lists for model cavity sites: predictions and experimental testing. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[36]  Francesco Luigi Gervasio,et al.  From A to B in free energy space. , 2007, The Journal of chemical physics.

[37]  Régis Pomès,et al.  Calculation of absolute protein-ligand binding free energy using distributed replica sampling. , 2008, The Journal of chemical physics.

[38]  V. S. Bryantsev,et al.  Calculation of solvation free energies of charged solutes using mixed cluster/continuum models. , 2008, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[39]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  LUDI: rule-based automatic design of new substituents for enzyme inhibitor leads , 1992, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[40]  Weiliang Zhu,et al.  C-X...H contacts in biomolecular systems: how they contribute to protein-ligand binding affinity. , 2009, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

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

[42]  Giulio Rastelli,et al.  Fast and accurate predictions of binding free energies using MM‐PBSA and MM‐GBSA , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[43]  Shuichi Hirono,et al.  Comparison of Consensus Scoring Strategies for Evaluating Computational Models of Protein-Ligand Complexes , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[44]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Prediction of protein-ligand complex structure by docking software guided by other complex structures. , 2008, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[45]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  Binding Response: A Descriptor for Selecting Ligand Binding Site on Protein Surfaces , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[47]  Donald G Truhlar,et al.  Quantum mechanical continuum solvation models for ionic liquids. , 2012, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[48]  Supot Hannongbua,et al.  Accurate prediction of protonation state as a prerequisite for reliable MM‐PB(GB)SA binding free energy calculations of HIV‐1 protease inhibitors , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[49]  Charles L. Brooks,et al.  λ‐Dynamics free energy simulation methods , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[50]  K. Merz,et al.  Explicitly representing the solvation shell in continuum solvent calculations. , 2009, The journal of physical chemistry. A.

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

[52]  F V Grigoriev,et al.  Computation of the contribution from the cavity effect to protein-ligand binding free energy. , 2008, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[53]  Jiro Shimada,et al.  Bootstrap-Based Consensus Scoring Method for Protein-Ligand Docking , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[54]  Art E. Cho,et al.  Extension of QM/MM docking and its applications to metalloproteins , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[56]  Hege S. Beard,et al.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[57]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[58]  Reiji Teramoto,et al.  Structure-Based Virtual Screening with Supervised Consensus Scoring: Evaluation of Pose Prediction and Enrichment Factors , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[59]  A. N. Romanov,et al.  Computation of entropy contribution to protein-ligand binding free energy , 2007, Biochemistry (Moscow).

[60]  Gennady M Verkhivker,et al.  Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. , 1995, Chemistry & biology.

[61]  Hanoch Senderowitz,et al.  SeleX-CS: A New Consensus Scoring Algorithm for Hit Discovery and Lead Optimization , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[62]  Irwin D. Kuntz,et al.  Development and validation of a modular, extensible docking program: DOCK 5 , 2006, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[63]  Wei Yang,et al.  Random walk in orthogonal space to achieve efficient free-energy simulation of complex systems , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[64]  Chung F Wong,et al.  Rank-ordering protein-ligand binding affinity by a quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann-surface area model. , 2007, The Journal of chemical physics.

[65]  Richard H. Henchman,et al.  Standard Free Energy of Binding from a One-Dimensional Potential of Mean Force. , 2009, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[66]  Matthew Clark,et al.  Grand Canonical Free-Energy Calculations of Protein-Ligand Binding , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[67]  Peter Kolb,et al.  Docking screens: right for the right reasons? , 2009, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[68]  Wei Deng,et al.  Evaluation of Different Virtual Screening Programs for Docking in a Charged Binding Pocket , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[69]  Jason C. Cole,et al.  Testing Assumptions and Hypotheses for Rescoring Success in Protein-Ligand Docking , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[70]  SHENG-YOU HUANG,et al.  An iterative knowledge‐based scoring function to predict protein–ligand interactions: I. Derivation of interaction potentials , 2006, J. Comput. Chem..

[71]  R. Sanchez,et al.  Improving accuracy and efficiency of blind protein‐ligand docking by focusing on predicted binding sites , 2009, Proteins.

[72]  G. V. Paolini,et al.  Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes , 1997, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[73]  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.

[74]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  Computational identification of inhibitors of protein-protein interactions. , 2007, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[75]  G. Klebe,et al.  DrugScore(CSD)-knowledge-based scoring function derived from small molecule crystal data with superior recognition rate of near-native ligand poses and better affinity prediction. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[76]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  CHARMM general force field: A force field for drug‐like molecules compatible with the CHARMM all‐atom additive biological force fields , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[77]  Richard A. Bryce,et al.  Assessment of QM/MM Scoring Functions for Molecular Docking to HIV-1 Protease , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[78]  Matthew Paul Gleeson,et al.  QM/MM As a Tool in Fragment Based Drug Discovery. A Cross-Docking, Rescoring Study of Kinase Inhibitors , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[79]  C. E. Peishoff,et al.  A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[80]  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..

[81]  Jianpeng Ma,et al.  CHARMM: The biomolecular simulation program , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..