SuperStar: comparison of CSD and PDB-based interaction fields as a basis for the prediction of protein-ligand interactions.

SuperStar is an empirical method for identifying interaction sites in proteins, based entirely on the experimental information about non-bonded interactions, present in the IsoStar database. The interaction information in IsoStar is contained in scatterplots, which show the distribution of a chosen probe around structure fragments. SuperStar breaks a template molecule (e.g. a protein binding site) into structural fragments which correspond to those in the scatterplots. The scatterplots are then superimposed on the corresponding parts of the template and converted into a composite propensity map. The original version of SuperStar was based entirely on scatterplots from the CSD. Here, scatterplots based on protein-ligand interactions are implemented in SuperStar, and validated on a test set of 122 X-ray structures of protein-ligand complexes. In this validation, propensity maps are compared with the experimentally observed positions of ligand atoms of comparable types. Although non-bonded interaction geometries in small molecule structures are similar to those found in protein-ligand complexes, their relative frequencies of occurrence are different. Polar interactions are more common in the first class of structures, while interactions between hydrophobic groups are more common in protein crystals. In general, PDB and CSD-based SuperStar maps appear equally successful in the prediction of protein-ligand interactions. PDB-based maps are more suitable to identify hydrophobic pockets, and inherently take into account the experimental uncertainties of protein atomic positions. If the protonation state of a histidine, aspartate or glutamate protein side-chain is known, specific CSD-based maps for that protonation state are preferred over PDB-based maps which represent an ensemble of protonation states.

[1]  P M Dean,et al.  Automated site-directed drug design : the prediction and observation of ligand point positions at hydrogen-bonding regions on protein surfaces , 1989, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B. Biological Sciences.

[2]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  The computer program LUDI: A new method for the de novo design of enzyme inhibitors , 1992, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[3]  P. Goodford A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. , 1985, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[4]  Robin Taylor,et al.  IsoStar: A library of information about nonbonded interactions , 1997, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[6]  P M Dean,et al.  Automated site-directed drug design: a general algorithm for knowledge acquisition about hydrogen-bonding regions at protein surfaces , 1989, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B. Biological Sciences.

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

[8]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  FLOG: A system to select ‘quasi-flexible’ ligands complementary to a receptor of known three-dimensional structure , 1994, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[9]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  MCDOCK: A Monte Carlo simulation approach to the molecular docking problem , 1999, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[10]  R. Glen,et al.  Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[11]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  LUDI: rule-based automatic design of new substituents for enzyme inhibitor leads , 1992, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[12]  J M Thornton,et al.  X-SITE: use of empirically derived atomic packing preferences to identify favourable interaction regions in the binding sites of proteins. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[13]  G. Klebe,et al.  Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[14]  M. Karplus,et al.  Functionality maps of binding sites: A multiple copy simultaneous search method , 1991, Proteins.

[15]  C. Sander,et al.  Positioning hydrogen atoms by optimizing hydrogen‐bond networks in protein structures , 1996, Proteins.

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

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

[18]  P. Willett,et al.  SuperStar: improved knowledge-based interaction fields for protein binding sites. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[20]  Barry Robson,et al.  PRO_LIGAND: An approach to de novo molecular design. 1. Application to the design of organic molecules , 1995, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[21]  Robin Taylor,et al.  SuperStar: a knowledge-based approach for identifying interaction sites in proteins. , 1999, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  M. Karplus,et al.  Multiple copy simultaneous search and construction of ligands in binding sites: application to inhibitors of HIV-1 aspartic proteinase. , 1993, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[23]  G E Kellogg,et al.  Allosteric modifiers of hemoglobin. 2. Crystallographically determined binding sites and hydrophobic binding/interaction analysis of novel hemoglobin oxygen effectors. , 1991, Journal of medicinal chemistry.