A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions.

Docking is a computational technique that samples conformations of small molecules in protein binding sites; scoring functions are used to assess which of these conformations best complements the protein binding site. An evaluation of 10 docking programs and 37 scoring functions was conducted against eight proteins of seven protein types for three tasks: binding mode prediction, virtual screening for lead identification, and rank-ordering by affinity for lead optimization. All of the docking programs were able to generate ligand conformations similar to crystallographically determined protein/ligand complex structures for at least one of the targets. However, scoring functions were less successful at distinguishing the crystallographic conformation from the set of docked poses. Docking programs identified active compounds from a pharmaceutically relevant pool of decoy compounds; however, no single program performed well for all of the targets. For prediction of compound affinity, none of the docking programs or scoring functions made a useful prediction of ligand binding affinity.

[1]  J M Blaney,et al.  A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. , 1982, Journal of molecular biology.

[2]  Conrad C. Huang,et al.  The MIDAS display system , 1988 .

[3]  I. Kuntz Structure-Based Strategies for Drug Design and Discovery , 1992, Science.

[4]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Structure-Based Molecular Design , 1994 .

[5]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure , 1994, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[6]  David B. Fogel,et al.  Docking Conformationally Flexible Small Molecules into a Protein Binding Site through Evolutionary Programming , 1995, Evolutionary Programming.

[7]  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.

[8]  T. Halgren,et al.  A priori prediction of activity for HIV-1 protease inhibitors employing energy minimization in the active site. , 1995, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[10]  Todd J. A. Ewing,et al.  Critical evaluation of search algorithms for automated molecular docking and database screening , 1997, J. Comput. Chem..

[11]  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..

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

[13]  Y. Martin,et al.  A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[15]  Todd J. A. Ewing,et al.  DREAM++: Flexible docking program for virtual combinatorial libraries , 1999, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[16]  T Lengauer,et al.  The particle concept: placing discrete water molecules during protein‐ligand docking predictions , 1999, Proteins.

[17]  R M Knegtel,et al.  Efficacy and selectivity in flexible database docking , 1999, Proteins.

[18]  D. Rognan,et al.  Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[19]  J. Madura,et al.  Docking of sulfonamides to carbonic anhydrase II and IV. , 2000, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[20]  Ingo Muegge,et al.  Evaluation of docking/scoring approaches: A comparative study based on MMP3 inhibitors , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[21]  Protein-Ligand Interactions,et al.  Knowledge-based Scoring Function to Predict , 2000 .

[22]  A. Ortiz,et al.  Evaluation of docking functions for protein-ligand docking. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[23]  F. Jørgensen,et al.  A new concept for multidimensional selection of ligand conformations (MultiSelect) and multidimensional scoring (MultiScore) of protein-ligand binding affinities. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  Luhua Lai,et al.  Protein ligand docking based on empirical method for binding affinity estimation , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[25]  M Rarey,et al.  Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[26]  J. Risler,et al.  How methionyl-tRNA synthetase creates its amino acid recognition pocket upon L-methionine binding. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[27]  T. Willson,et al.  Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors: from genes to physiology. , 2001, Recent progress in hormone research.

[28]  Todd J. A. Ewing,et al.  DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[29]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Molecular docking and high-throughput screening for novel inhibitors of protein tyrosine phosphatase-1B. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[30]  T. Hunter,et al.  The Protein Kinase Complement of the Human Genome , 2002, Science.

[31]  P. Sampson,et al.  Methionine in and out of proteins: targets for drug design. , 2002, Current medicinal chemistry.

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

[33]  G. Klebe,et al.  Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. , 2002, Angewandte Chemie.

[34]  Jeremy L Jenkins,et al.  Virtual screening to enrich hit lists from high‐throughput screening: A case study on small‐molecule inhibitors of angiogenin , 2002, Proteins.

[35]  D. Diller,et al.  Kinases, homology models, and high throughput docking. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[36]  Martin Stahl,et al.  Binding site characteristics in structure-based virtual screening: evaluation of current docking tools , 2003, Journal of molecular modeling.

[37]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Discovery of diverse thyroid hormone receptor antagonists by high-throughput docking , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  Renxiao Wang,et al.  Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[39]  Meitian Wang,et al.  Non-nucleoside Analogue Inhibitors Bind to an Allosteric Site on HCV NS5B Polymerase , 2003, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[40]  P. Charifson,et al.  Active-Site Residues of Escherichia coli DNA Gyrase Required in Coupling ATP Hydrolysis to DNA Supercoiling and Amino Acid Substitutions Leading to Novobiocin Resistance , 2003, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[41]  J. Smallheer,et al.  The race to an orally active Factor Xa inhibitor: recent advances. , 2004, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[42]  Jiri Bartek,et al.  Targeting the checkpoint kinases: chemosensitization versus chemoprotection , 2004, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[43]  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.

[44]  Maria Kontoyianni,et al.  Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[45]  D. J. Price,et al.  Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[46]  Lars Hemmingsen,et al.  Docking and scoring of metallo-β-lactamases inhibitors , 2004, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[47]  W Patrick Walters,et al.  A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance , 2004, Proteins.

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

[49]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  An Extensive Test of 14 Scoring Functions Using the PDBbind Refined Set of 800 Protein-Ligand Complexes , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[50]  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.

[51]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy , 2004, Proteins.

[52]  Maria Kontoyianni,et al.  Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..