PL-PatchSurfer2: Improved Local Surface Matching-Based Virtual Screening Method That Is Tolerant to Target and Ligand Structure Variation

Virtual screening has become an indispensable procedure in drug discovery. Virtual screening methods can be classified into two categories: ligand-based and structure-based. While the former have advantages, including being quick to compute, in general they are relatively weak at discovering novel active compounds because they use known actives as references. On the other hand, structure-based methods have higher potential to find novel compounds because they directly predict the binding affinity of a ligand in a target binding pocket, albeit with substantially lower speed than ligand-based methods. Here we report a novel structure-based virtual screening method, PL-PatchSurfer2. In PL-PatchSurfer2, protein and ligand surfaces are represented by a set of overlapping local patches, each of which is represented by three-dimensional Zernike descriptors (3DZDs). By means of 3DZDs, the shapes and physicochemical complementarities of local surface regions of a pocket surface and a ligand molecule can be concisely and effectively computed. Compared with the previous version of the program, the performance of PL-PatchSurfer2 is substantially improved by the addition of two more features, atom-based hydrophobicity and hydrogen-bond acceptors and donors. Benchmark studies showed that PL-PatchSurfer2 performed better than or comparable to popular existing methods. Particularly, PL-PatchSurfer2 significantly outperformed existing methods when apo-form or template-based protein models were used for queries. The computational time of PL-PatchSurfer2 is about 20 times shorter than those of conventional structure-based methods. The PL-PatchSurfer2 program is available at http://www.kiharalab.org/plps2/ .

[1]  Lazaros Mavridis,et al.  Comprehensive Comparison of Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Tools Against the DUD Data set Reveals Limitations of Current 3D Methods , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[2]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  3D-SURFER 2.0: web platform for real-time search and characterization of protein surfaces. , 2014, Methods in molecular biology.

[3]  W. Graham Richards,et al.  Ultrafast shape recognition to search compound databases for similar molecular shapes , 2007, J. Comput. Chem..

[4]  William J. Allen,et al.  DOCK 6: Impact of new features and current docking performance , 2015, J. Comput. Chem..

[5]  Jürgen Brickmann,et al.  A new approach to analysis and display of local lipophilicity/hydrophilicity mapped on molecular surfaces , 1993, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[7]  Benjamin A. Ellingson,et al.  Conformer Generation with OMEGA: Algorithm and Validation Using High Quality Structures from the Protein Databank and Cambridge Structural Database , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[8]  Thomas Sander,et al.  Comparison of Ligand- and Structure-Based Virtual Screening on the DUD Data Set , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[9]  Hanna Geppert,et al.  Current Trends in Ligand-Based Virtual Screening: Molecular Representations, Data Mining Methods, New Application Areas, and Performance Evaluation , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[10]  Mark A. Murcko,et al.  Virtual screening : an overview , 1998 .

[11]  Ajay N. Jain Surflex-Dock 2.1: Robust performance from ligand energetic modeling, ring flexibility, and knowledge-based search , 2007, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[12]  Nathan A. Baker,et al.  Electrostatics of nanosystems: Application to microtubules and the ribosome , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  PL-PatchSurfer: A Novel Molecular Local Surface-Based Method for Exploring Protein-Ligand Interactions , 2014, International journal of molecular sciences.

[14]  M. Kanehisa,et al.  Development of a chemical structure comparison method for integrated analysis of chemical and genomic information in the metabolic pathways. , 2003, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[15]  P. Hawkins,et al.  Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[16]  Katrin Stierand,et al.  Drawing the PDB: Protein-Ligand Complexes in Two Dimensions. , 2010, ACS medicinal chemistry letters.

[17]  Daan P. Geerke,et al.  Towards Automated Binding Affinity Prediction Using an Iterative Linear Interaction Energy Approach , 2014, International journal of molecular sciences.

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

[19]  Peter Willett,et al.  RASCAL: Calculation of Graph Similarity using Maximum Common Edge Subgraphs , 2002, Comput. J..

[20]  Zbigniew Dauter,et al.  Molecular basis of agonism and antagonism in the oestrogen receptor , 1997, Nature.

[21]  Ajay N. Jain Effects of protein conformation in docking: improved pose prediction through protein pocket adaptation , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[22]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Advances in GPCR modeling evaluated by the GPCR Dock 2013 assessment: meeting new challenges. , 2014, Structure.

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

[24]  Qiang Huang,et al.  Predicting Inactive Conformations of Protein Kinases Using Active Structures: Conformational Selection of Type-II Inhibitors , 2011, PloS one.

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

[26]  Christopher I. Bayly,et al.  Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the "Early Recognition" Problem , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[27]  Amy C. Anderson,et al.  Scoring Ensembles of Docked Protein: Ligand Interactions for Virtual Lead Optimization , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[28]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Homology modeling in drug discovery: current trends and applications. , 2009, Drug discovery today.

[29]  William L. Jorgensen,et al.  Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[30]  Scott A. Busby,et al.  A Combined Ligand‐ and Structure‐Based Virtual Screening Protocol Identifies Submicromolar PPARγ Partial Agonists , 2011, ChemMedChem.

[31]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  Three-Dimensional Compound Comparison Methods and Their Application in Drug Discovery , 2015, Molecules.

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

[33]  Yuan Zhao,et al.  Computation of Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients by Guiding an Additive Model with Knowledge , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[34]  D. Kihara,et al.  Detecting local ligand‐binding site similarity in nonhomologous proteins by surface patch comparison , 2012, Proteins.

[35]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  Binding Ligand Prediction for Proteins Using Partial Matching of Local Surface Patches , 2010, International journal of molecular sciences.

[36]  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..

[37]  X. Zou,et al.  Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: Considering protein structural variations in molecular docking , 2006, Proteins.

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

[39]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[40]  Nathan Robertson,et al.  Article pubs.acs.org/jmc Identification of Novel Adenosine A 2A Receptor Antagonists by Virtual Screening , 2022 .

[41]  Marcin Novotni,et al.  3D zernike descriptors for content based shape retrieval , 2003, SM '03.

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

[43]  D. Kihara,et al.  Real‐time ligand binding pocket database search using local surface descriptors , 2010, Proteins.

[44]  Jean-Louis Reymond,et al.  SMIfp (SMILES fingerprint) Chemical Space for Virtual Screening and Visualization of Large Databases of Organic Molecules , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[45]  Glen Eugene Kellogg,et al.  HINT: A new method of empirical hydrophobic field calculation for CoMFA , 1991, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[47]  Wei Zhao,et al.  A statistical framework to evaluate virtual screening , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[48]  James G. Nourse,et al.  Reoptimization of MDL Keys for Use in Drug Discovery , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[49]  T. Blundell,et al.  Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. , 1993, Journal of molecular biology.

[50]  Arthur J. Olson,et al.  AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[51]  Alessandro Pandini,et al.  Predicting the accuracy of protein–ligand docking on homology models , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[52]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  Navigating 3D electron microscopy maps with EM-SURFER , 2015, BMC Bioinformatics.

[53]  Cristina Tintori,et al.  Homology Model-Based Virtual Screening for the Identification of Human Helicase DDX3 Inhibitors , 2015, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[54]  Deok-Soo Kim,et al.  GalaxyDock2: Protein–ligand docking using beta‐complex and global optimization , 2013, J. Comput. Chem..

[55]  J. Skolnick,et al.  TM-align: a protein structure alignment algorithm based on the TM-score , 2005, Nucleic acids research.

[56]  Jie Li,et al.  Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on an Updated Benchmark: 1. Compilation of the Test Set , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[57]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Molecular Docking Screens Using Comparative Models of Proteins , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[58]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  Large-scale binding ligand prediction by improved patch-based method Patch-Surfer2.0 , 2015, Bioinform..

[59]  Yongbo Hu,et al.  Comparison of Several Molecular Docking Programs: Pose Prediction and Virtual Screening Accuracy , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[60]  Diane Joseph-McCarthy,et al.  Ensemble-Based Docking Using Biased Molecular Dynamics , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..