Recipes for the Selection of Experimental Protein Conformations for Virtual Screening

The use of multiple X-ray protein structures has been reported to be an efficient alternative for the representation of the binding pocket flexibility needed for accurate small molecules docking. However, the docking performance of the individual single conformations varies widely, and adding certain conformations to an ensemble is even counterproductive. Here we used a very large and diverse benchmark of 1068 X-ray protein conformations of 99 therapeutically relevant proteins, first, to compare the performance of the ensemble and single-conformation docking and, second, to find the properties of the best-performing conformers that can be used to select a smaller set of conformers for ensemble docking. The conformer selection has been validated through retrospective virtual screening experiments aimed at separating known ligand binders from decoys. We found that the conformers cocrystallized with the largest ligands displayed high selectivity for binders, and when combined in ensembles they consistently provided better results than randomly chosen protein conformations. The use of ensembles encompassing between 3 and 5 experimental conformations consistently improved the docking accuracy and binders vs decoys separation.

[1]  Gerard J Kleywegt,et al.  Application and limitations of X-ray crystallographic data in structure-based ligand and drug design. , 2003, Angewandte Chemie.

[2]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  A new method for ligand docking to flexible receptors by dual alanine scanning and refinement (SCARE) , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[3]  Tom L. Blundell,et al.  Keynote review: Structural biology and drug discovery , 2005 .

[4]  Rommie E. Amaro,et al.  An improved relaxed complex scheme for receptor flexibility in computer-aided drug design , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[5]  Richard J. Hall,et al.  Protein-Ligand Docking against Non-Native Protein Conformers , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[6]  R. Abagyan,et al.  The flexible pocketome engine for structural chemogenomics. , 2009, Methods in molecular biology.

[7]  G. Klebe Virtual ligand screening: strategies, perspectives and limitations , 2006, Drug Discovery Today.

[8]  Amy C Anderson,et al.  Towards in silico lead optimization: Scores from ensembles of protein/ligand conformations reliably correlate with biological activity , 2006, Proteins.

[9]  Paul N. Mortenson,et al.  Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[10]  T. A. Jones,et al.  The Uppsala Electron-Density Server. , 2004, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

[11]  Erin S. Bolstad,et al.  In pursuit of virtual lead optimization: The role of the receptor structure and ensembles in accurate docking , 2008, Proteins.

[12]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Detailed ab initio prediction of lysozyme–antibody complex with 1.6 Å accuracy , 1994, Nature Structural Biology.

[13]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Type-II kinase inhibitor docking, screening, and profiling using modified structures of active kinase states. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  Thomas A. Halgren Merck molecular force field. I. Basis, form, scope, parameterization, and performance of MMFF94 , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

[15]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[16]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Consistent Improvement of Cross-Docking Results Using Binding Site Ensembles Generated with Elastic Network Normal Modes , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[17]  Somesh D. Sharma,et al.  Managing protein flexibility in docking and its applications. , 2009, Drug discovery today.

[18]  Pedro Alexandrino Fernandes,et al.  Protein–ligand docking: Current status and future challenges , 2006, Proteins.

[19]  Bernard Pirard,et al.  Structure-based chemogenomics: analysis of protein family landscapes. , 2009, Methods in molecular biology.

[20]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  Target flexibility: an emerging consideration in drug discovery and design. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  Lisa M. Shewchuk,et al.  Crystallization of protein–ligand complexes , 2006, Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography.

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

[23]  Hao Wang,et al.  Active Site Pressurization: A New Tool for Structure-Guided Drug Design and Other Studies of Protein Flexibility , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[24]  Marcel L. Verdonk,et al.  Sensitivity of molecular docking to induced fit effects in influenza virus neuraminidase , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[25]  Robin Taylor,et al.  Comparing protein–ligand docking programs is difficult , 2005, Proteins.

[26]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  Computational evaluation of protein-small molecule binding. , 2009, Current opinion in structural biology.

[27]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[28]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Biased probability Monte Carlo conformational searches and electrostatic calculations for peptides and proteins. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[29]  X. Barril,et al.  Unveiling the full potential of flexible receptor docking using multiple crystallographic structures. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[30]  H. Scheraga,et al.  Energy parameters in polypeptides. 10. Improved geometrical parameters and nonbonded interactions for use in the ECEPP/3 algorithm, with application to proline-containing peptides , 1994 .

[31]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Soft docking and multiple receptor conformations in virtual screening. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[32]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Derivation of sensitive discrimination potential for virtual ligand screening , 1999, RECOMB.

[33]  Ajay N. Jain Bias, reporting, and sharing: computational evaluations of docking methods , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[34]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Representing receptor flexibility in ligand docking through relevant normal modes. , 2005, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[35]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking , 2003, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[36]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Pocketome via Comprehensive Identification and Classification of Ligand Binding Envelopes* , 2005, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[37]  H. Carlson Protein flexibility and drug design: how to hit a moving target. , 2002, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[38]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative. , 2008, Current opinion in structural biology.

[39]  Charles L. Brooks,et al.  Community-wide assessment of GPCR structure modelling and ligand docking: GPCR Dock 2008 , 2009, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[40]  P. Fischer,et al.  Protein structures in virtual screening: a case study with CDK2. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[41]  William J. Welsh,et al.  Identification of a Minimal Subset of Receptor Conformations for Improved Multiple Conformation Docking and Two-Step Scoring , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[42]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Information decay in molecular docking screens against holo, apo, and modeled conformations of enzymes. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[43]  David S. Wishart,et al.  DrugBank: a knowledgebase for drugs, drug actions and drug targets , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[45]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Improving database enrichment through ensemble docking , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[46]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Four-dimensional docking: a fast and accurate account of discrete receptor flexibility in ligand docking. , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.