Importance of the Pharmacological Profile of the Bound Ligand in Enrichment on Nuclear Receptors: Toward the Use of Experimentally Validated Decoy Ligands

The evaluation of virtual ligand screening methods is of major importance to ensure their reliability. Taking into account the agonist/antagonist pharmacological profile should improve the quality of the benchmarking data sets since ligand binding can induce conformational changes in the nuclear receptor structure and such changes may vary according to the agonist/antagonist ligand profile. We indeed found that splitting the agonist and antagonist ligands into two separate data sets for a given nuclear receptor target significantly enhances the quality of the evaluation. The pharmacological profile of the ligand bound in the binding site of the target structure was also found to be an additional critical parameter. We also illustrate that active compound data sets for a given pharmacological activity can be used as a set of experimentally validated decoy ligands for another pharmacological activity to ensure a reliable and challenging evaluation of virtual screening methods.

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

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

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

[4]  Simona Distinto,et al.  Evaluation of the performance of 3D virtual screening protocols: RMSD comparisons, enrichment assessments, and decoy selection—What can we learn from earlier mistakes? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[6]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R , 2005, Bioinform..

[7]  F. Wilcoxon Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods , 1945 .

[8]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Ligand and Decoy Sets for Docking to G Protein-Coupled Receptors , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[9]  Matthieu Montes,et al.  NRLiSt BDB, the manually curated nuclear receptors ligands and structures benchmarking database. , 2014, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[10]  J. Virtual screening : a real screening complement to high-throughput screening , 2009 .

[11]  John W. Liebeschuetz,et al.  Evaluating docking programs: keeping the playing field level , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[13]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Integrating virtual screening in lead discovery. , 2004, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[14]  Matthieu Montes,et al.  Multiple Structures for Virtual Ligand Screening: Defining Binding Site Properties-Based Criteria to Optimize the Selection of the Query , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[15]  Maria A Miteva,et al.  Structure‐based virtual ligand screening with LigandFit: Pose prediction and enrichment of compound collections , 2007, Proteins.

[16]  Maria A Miteva,et al.  Fast structure-based virtual ligand screening combining FRED, DOCK, and Surflex. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[17]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Parameter estimation for scoring protein-ligand interactions using negative training data. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  Ajay N. Jain Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[19]  H. Gronemeyer,et al.  Nuclear receptor ligand-binding domains: three-dimensional structures, molecular interactions and pharmacological implications. , 2000, Trends in pharmacological sciences.