Using Multiple Microenvironments to Find Similar Ligand-Binding Sites: Application to Kinase Inhibitor Binding

The recognition of cryptic small-molecular binding sites in protein structures is important for understanding off-target side effects and for recognizing potential new indications for existing drugs. Current methods focus on the geometry and detailed chemical interactions within putative binding pockets, but may not recognize distant similarities where dynamics or modified interactions allow one ligand to bind apparently divergent binding pockets. In this paper, we introduce an algorithm that seeks similar microenvironments within two binding sites, and assesses overall binding site similarity by the presence of multiple shared microenvironments. The method has relatively weak geometric requirements (to allow for conformational change or dynamics in both the ligand and the pocket) and uses multiple biophysical and biochemical measures to characterize the microenvironments (to allow for diverse modes of ligand binding). We term the algorithm PocketFEATURE, since it focuses on pockets using the FEATURE system for characterizing microenvironments. We validate PocketFEATURE first by showing that it can better discriminate sites that bind similar ligands from those that do not, and by showing that we can recognize FAD-binding sites on a proteome scale with Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 92%. We then apply PocketFEATURE to evolutionarily distant kinases, for which the method recognizes several proven distant relationships, and predicts unexpected shared ligand binding. Using experimental data from ChEMBL and Ambit, we show that at high significance level, 40 kinase pairs are predicted to share ligands. Some of these pairs offer new opportunities for inhibiting two proteins in a single pathway.

[1]  M. Levitt,et al.  Structural similarity of DNA-binding domains of bacteriophage repressors and the globin core , 1993, Current Biology.

[2]  G. Schneider,et al.  PocketPicker: analysis of ligand binding-sites with shape descriptors , 2007, Chemistry Central Journal.

[3]  R. Jackson,et al.  Structural Classification of Phosphate Binding Sites in Protein-Nucleotide Complexes: An Automated All-Against-All Structural Comparison Using Geometric Matching , 2003 .

[4]  K. Kinoshita,et al.  Identification of protein functions from a molecular surface database, eF-site , 2004, Journal of Structural and Functional Genomics.

[5]  Matthew L. Danielson,et al.  Computer-aided drug design platform using PyMOL , 2011, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[6]  Eyke Hüllermeier,et al.  Functional Classification of Protein Kinase Binding Sites Using Cavbase , 2007, ChemMedChem.

[7]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Recognition of Functional Sites in Protein Structures☆ , 2004, Journal of Molecular Biology.

[8]  O. Dym,et al.  Sequence‐structure analysis of FAD‐containing proteins , 2001, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[9]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  QSAR Models for Predicting the Similarity in Binding Profiles for Pairs of Protein Kinases and the Variation of Models between Experimental Data Sets , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[10]  Didier Rognan,et al.  sc-PDB: an Annotated Database of Druggable Binding Sites from the Protein Data Bank , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[11]  Grace W. Tang,et al.  Remote thioredoxin recognition using evolutionary conservation and structural dynamics. , 2011, Structure.

[12]  S. Teague Implications of protein flexibility for drug discovery , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[13]  Lei Xie,et al.  Detecting evolutionary relationships across existing fold space, using sequence order-independent profile–profile alignments , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Didier Rognan,et al.  How to Measure the Similarity Between Protein Ligand-Binding Sites? , 2008 .

[15]  Mindy I. Davis,et al.  A quantitative analysis of kinase inhibitor selectivity , 2008, Nature Biotechnology.

[16]  Osvaldo Olmea,et al.  MAMMOTH (Matching molecular models obtained from theory): An automated method for model comparison , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[17]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  ChemInform Abstract: Quantifying the Relationships among Drug Classes. , 2008 .

[18]  R. Altman,et al.  Using the radial distributions of physical features to compare amino acid environments and align amino acid sequences. , 1997, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

[19]  R. Morphy Selectively nonselective kinase inhibition: striking the right balance. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  K. Kinoshita,et al.  Identification of protein biochemical functions by similarity search using the molecular surface database eF‐site , 2003, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[21]  Brent R Stockwell,et al.  Inhibition of casein kinase 1-epsilon induces cancer-cell-selective, PERIOD2-dependent growth arrest , 2008, Genome Biology.

[22]  J. Thornton,et al.  Shape variation in protein binding pockets and their ligands. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[23]  Sunkyu Kim,et al.  Validating cancer drug targets , 2006, Nature.

[24]  K. Shokat,et al.  Targeted polypharmacology: Discovery of dual inhibitors of tyrosine and phosphoinositide kinases , 2008, Nature chemical biology.

[25]  John P. Overington ChEMBL. An interview with John Overington, team leader, chemogenomics at the European Bioinformatics Institute Outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL-EBI). Interview by Wendy A. Warr. , 2009, Journal of computer-aided molecular design.

[26]  Laura M. Heiser,et al.  Basal subtype and MAPK/ERK kinase (MEK)-phosphoinositide 3-kinase feedback signaling determine susceptibility of breast cancer cells to MEK inhibition. , 2009, Cancer research.

[27]  Janet M. Thornton,et al.  Detection of 3D atomic similarities and their use in the discrimination of small molecule protein-binding sites , 2008, ECCB.

[28]  Tianyun Liu,et al.  Prediction of calcium-binding sites by combining loop-modeling with machine learning , 2009 .

[29]  Russ B Altman,et al.  The SeqFEATURE library of 3D functional site models: comparison to existing methods and applications to protein function annotation , 2008, Genome Biology.

[30]  Russ B Altman,et al.  Microenvironment analysis and identification of magnesium binding sites in RNA. , 2003, Nucleic acids research.

[31]  Janet M. Thornton,et al.  Real spherical harmonic expansion coefficients as 3D shape descriptors for protein binding pocket and ligand comparisons , 2005, Bioinform..

[32]  Wendy A. Warr,et al.  ChEMBL. An interview with John Overington, team leader, chemogenomics at the European Bioinformatics Institute Outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL-EBI) , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[33]  Mona Singh,et al.  Predicting Protein Ligand Binding Sites by Combining Evolutionary Sequence Conservation and 3D Structure , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[34]  Philip E. Bourne,et al.  Drug Discovery Using Chemical Systems Biology: Identification of the Protein-Ligand Binding Network To Explain the Side Effects of CETP Inhibitors , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[35]  Giovanni De Micheli,et al.  Clustering protein environments for function prediction: finding PROSITE motifs in 3D , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[36]  Zhe Shi,et al.  Computer Aided Multi-target Drug Design, Multi-target Virtual Screening , 2010 .

[37]  E. Kellenberger,et al.  A simple and fuzzy method to align and compare druggable ligand‐binding sites , 2008, Proteins.

[38]  Nathanael Weill,et al.  Alignment-Free Ultra-High-Throughput Comparison of Druggable Protein-Ligand Binding Sites , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[39]  S. Bagley,et al.  Conserved features in the active site of nonhomologous serine proteases. , 1996, Folding & design.