Pharmacophore-Based Similarity Scoring for DOCK

Pharmacophore modeling incorporates geometric and chemical features of known inhibitors and/or targeted binding sites to rationally identify and design new drug leads. In this study, we have encoded a three-dimensional pharmacophore matching similarity (FMS) scoring function into the structure-based design program DOCK. Validation and characterization of the method are presented through pose reproduction, crossdocking, and enrichment studies. When used alone, FMS scoring dramatically improves pose reproduction success to 93.5% (∼20% increase) and reduces sampling failures to 3.7% (∼6% drop) compared to the standard energy score (SGE) across 1043 protein–ligand complexes. The combined FMS+SGE function further improves success to 98.3%. Crossdocking experiments using FMS and FMS+SGE scoring, for six diverse protein families, similarly showed improvements in success, provided proper pharmacophore references are employed. For enrichment, incorporating pharmacophores during sampling and scoring, in most cases, also yield improved outcomes when docking and rank-ordering libraries of known actives and decoys to 15 systems. Retrospective analyses of virtual screenings to three clinical drug targets (EGFR, IGF-1R, and HIVgp41) using X-ray structures of known inhibitors as pharmacophore references are also reported, including a customized FMS scoring protocol to bias on selected regions in the reference. Overall, the results and fundamental insights gained from this study should benefit the docking community in general, particularly researchers using the new FMS method to guide computational drug discovery with DOCK.

[1]  Osman F. Güner,et al.  Setting the Record Straight: The Origin of the Pharmacophore Concept , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[2]  P. Ehrlich.  Ueber die Constitution des Diphtheriegiftes , 1898 .

[3]  Andreas Bender,et al.  Similarity Searching of Chemical Databases Using Atom Environment Descriptors (MOLPRINT 2D): Evaluation of Performance , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[4]  C. Wermuth,et al.  Glossary of terms used in medicinal chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 1998) , 1998 .

[5]  Peter Willett,et al.  GALAHAD: 1. Pharmacophore identification by hypermolecular alignment of ligands in 3D , 2006, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[6]  Thierry Langer,et al.  LigandScout: 3-D Pharmacophores Derived from Protein-Bound Ligands and Their Use as Virtual Screening Filters , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[7]  David E. Shaw,et al.  PHASE: a new engine for pharmacophore perception, 3D QSAR model development, and 3D database screening: 1. Methodology and preliminary results , 2006, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[8]  William J. Allen,et al.  Grid‐based molecular footprint comparison method for docking and de novo design: Application to HIVgp41 , 2013, J. Comput. Chem..

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

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

[11]  Markus A. Lill,et al.  Exploring the Potential of Protein-Based Pharmacophore Models in Ligand Pose Prediction and Ranking , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[12]  Jacob de Vlieg,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Pharmacophore Screening Tools , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[13]  Tom V. Mathew.  Genetic Algorithm , 2022 .

[14]  H. Bunke.  Graph Matching : Theoretical Foundations , Algorithms , and Applications , 2022 .

[15]  T. Mahoney,et al.  Glossary of Terms Used , 2019, Sorrow and Distress in the Talmud.

[16]  Andrew Smellie,et al.  Identification of Common Functional Configurations Among Molecules , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[17]  Sudipto Mukherjee,et al.  Evaluation of DOCK 6 as a pose generation and database enrichment tool , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[18]  I. Kuntz,et al.  DOCK 6: combining techniques to model RNA-small molecule complexes. , 2009, RNA.

[19]  R. Rizzo,et al.  A water-based mechanism of specificity and resistance for lapatinib with ErbB family kinases. , 2012, Biochemistry.

[20]  Michael M. Mysinger,et al.  Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E): Better Ligands and Decoys for Better Benchmarking , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  W. J. Allen,et al.  Strategies for lead discovery: application of footprint similarity targeting HIVgp41. , 2014, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[22]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Automated docking with grid‐based energy evaluation , 1992 .

[23]  A. Debnath,et al.  Conserved Salt Bridge between the N- and C-Terminal Heptad Repeat Regions of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 gp41 Core Structure Is Critical for Virus Entry and Inhibition , 2008, Journal of Virology.

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

[25]  Sudipto Mukherjee,et al.  Docking Validation Resources: Protein Family and Ligand Flexibility Experiments , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[26]  Conrad C. Huang,et al.  UCSF Chimera—A visualization system for exploratory research and analysis , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[27]  Brian K. Shoichet,et al.  ZINC - A Free Database of Commercially Available Compounds for Virtual Screening , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[28]  D. Joseph-McCarthy,et al.  Automated generation of MCSS‐derived pharmacophoric DOCK site points for searching multiconformation databases , 2003, Proteins.

[29]  Trent E Balius,et al.  Quantitative prediction of fold resistance for inhibitors of EGFR. , 2009, Biochemistry.

[30]  P. Ehrlich.  Über den jetzigen Stand der Chemotherapie , 1909 .

[31]  Andreas Bender,et al.  Molecular Similarity Searching Using Atom Environments, Information-Based Feature Selection, and a Naïve Bayesian Classifier , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[32]  William J. Allen,et al.  Implementation of the Hungarian Algorithm to Account for Ligand Symmetry and Similarity in Structure-Based Design , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[33]  W. L. Jorgensen.  The Many Roles of Computation in Drug Discovery , 2004, Science.

[34]  Valerie J. Gillet,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization of Pharmacophore Hypotheses: Bias Toward Low-Energy Conformations , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[35]  W. J. Allen,et al.  Computer-Aided Approaches for Targeting HIVgp41 , 2012, Biology.

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

[37]  Sudipto Mukherjee,et al.  Implementation and evaluation of a docking‐rescoring method using molecular footprint comparisons , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[38]  Anshul Mittal,et al.  A GENETIC ALGORITHM , 2010 .

[39]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Using shape complementarity as an initial screen in designing ligands for a receptor binding site of known three-dimensional structure. , 1988, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[40]  S. Haj-Dahmane,et al.  Targeting Fatty Acid Binding Protein (FABP) Anandamide Transporters – A Novel Strategy for Development of Anti-Inflammatory and Anti-Nociceptive Drugs , 2012, PloS one.

[41]  Gareth Jones,et al.  A genetic algorithm for flexible molecular overlay and pharmacophore elucidation , 1995, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[42]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Matching chemistry and shape in molecular docking. , 1993, Protein engineering.

[43]  Sheng-Yong Yang,et al.  Pharmacophore modeling and applications in drug discovery: challenges and recent advances. , 2010, Drug discovery today.

[44]  J. Irwin,et al.  Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[45]  M. Gochin,et al.  Footprint-based identification of viral entry inhibitors targeting HIVgp41. , 2012, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[46]  Diane Joseph-McCarthy,et al.  Pharmacophore‐based molecular docking to account for ligand flexibility , 2003, Proteins.

[47]  Horst Bunke,et al.  A graph distance metric based on the maximal common subgraph , 1998, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[48]  Brian K. Shoichet,et al.  Virtual screening of chemical libraries , 2004, Nature.

[49]  Richard A. Lewis,et al.  Three-dimensional pharmacophore methods in drug discovery. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[50]  F. Lombardo,et al.  Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. , 2001, Advanced drug delivery reviews.