Molecular Docking Screens Using Comparative Models of Proteins

Two orders of magnitude more protein sequences can be modeled by comparative modeling than have been determined by X-ray crystallography and NMR spectroscopy. Investigators have nevertheless been cautious about using comparative models for ligand discovery because of concerns about model errors. We suggest how to exploit comparative models for molecular screens, based on docking against a wide range of crystallographic structures and comparative models with known ligands. To account for the variation in the ligand-binding pocket as it binds different ligands, we calculate "consensus" enrichment by ranking each library compound by its best docking score against all available comparative models and/or modeling templates. For the majority of the targets, the consensus enrichment for multiple models was better than or comparable to that of the holo and apo X-ray structures. Even for single models, the models are significantly more enriching than the template structure if the template is paralogous and shares more than 25% sequence identity with the target.

[1]  Michael M. Mysinger,et al.  Automated Docking Screens: A Feasibility Study , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[2]  Luigi Petraccone,et al.  Structure-based drug design: from nucleic acid to membrane protein targets. , 2009, Experimental and molecular pathology.

[3]  A. Sali,et al.  How well can the accuracy of comparative protein structure models be predicted? , 2008, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[4]  Heidi J Imker,et al.  Discovery of a dipeptide epimerase enzymatic function guided by homology modeling and virtual screening. , 2008, Structure.

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

[6]  Béla Noszál,et al.  Discovery of novel human histamine H4 receptor ligands by large-scale structure-based virtual screening. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  Ola Engkvist,et al.  Molecular modeling of the second extracellular loop of G‐protein coupled receptors and its implication on structure‐based virtual screening , 2008, Proteins.

[8]  Sebastian Radestock,et al.  Homology Model-Based Virtual Screening for GPCR Ligands Using Docking and Target-Biased Scoring , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[9]  Mitchell A. Avery,et al.  Probing the Structures of Leishmanial Farnesyl Pyrophosphate Synthases: Homology Modeling and Docking Studies , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[11]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Recommendations for evaluation of computational methods , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[12]  Daniel L Baker,et al.  Virtual screening approaches for the identification of non-lipid autotaxin inhibitors. , 2008, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[13]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Discovery of small molecule inhibitors of ubiquitin-like poxvirus proteinase I7L using homology modeling and covalent docking approaches , 2007, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[14]  M. Taha,et al.  Combining docking, scoring and molecular field analyses to probe influenza neuraminidase-ligand interactions. , 2007, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[15]  Heidi J. Imker,et al.  Prediction and assignment of function for a divergent N-succinyl amino acid racemase. , 2007, Nature chemical biology.

[16]  Jinfeng Liu,et al.  Novel leverage of structural genomics , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[17]  G. Reiser,et al.  Structure and ligand-binding site characteristics of the human P2Y11 nucleotide receptor deduced from computational modelling and mutational analysis. , 2007, The Biochemical journal.

[18]  Marcin Król,et al.  Flexible relaxation of rigid‐body docking solutions , 2007, Proteins.

[19]  Junmei Wang,et al.  GPCR Structure-Based Virtual Screening Approach for CB2 Antagonist Search , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[20]  Heather A Carlson,et al.  Exploring experimental sources of multiple protein conformations in structure-based drug design. , 2007, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[21]  Edgar Jacoby,et al.  Evaluation of the utility of homology models in high throughput docking , 2007, Journal of molecular modeling.

[22]  Marc A. Martí-Renom,et al.  DBAli tools: mining the protein structure space , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[24]  Jens Meiler,et al.  ROSETTALIGAND: Protein–small molecule docking with full side‐chain flexibility , 2006, Proteins.

[25]  A. Sali,et al.  Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures , 2006, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[26]  Olivier Sperandio,et al.  Receptor-based computational screening of compound databases: the main docking-scoring engines. , 2006, Current protein & peptide science.

[27]  Adrian H Elcock,et al.  Structure selection for protein kinase docking and virtual screening: homology models or crystal structures? , 2006, Current protein & peptide science.

[28]  David M. Ferguson,et al.  A combined ligand-based and target-based drug design approach for G-protein coupled receptors: application to salvinorin A, a selective kappa opioid receptor agonist , 2006, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[29]  Rick Gussio,et al.  Homology model of RSK2 N-terminal kinase domain, structure-based identification of novel RSK2 inhibitors, and preliminary common pharmacophore. , 2006, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[30]  Ulrich Rester,et al.  Dock around the Clock – Current Status of Small Molecule Docking and Scoring , 2006 .

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

[32]  Miklos Feher,et al.  Consensus scoring for protein-ligand interactions. , 2006, Drug discovery today.

[33]  Chris Oostenbrink,et al.  Catalytic site prediction and virtual screening of cytochrome P450 2D6 substrates by consideration of water and rescoring in automated docking. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[34]  S. Moro,et al.  Novel strategies for the design of new potent and selective human A3 receptor antagonists: an update. , 2006, Current medicinal chemistry.

[35]  R. Friesner,et al.  Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[36]  M. Nowak,et al.  Homology modeling of the serotonin 5-HT1A receptor using automated docking of bioactive compounds with defined geometry. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[37]  J Andrew McCammon,et al.  Target flexibility in molecular recognition. , 2005, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[38]  Marc A. Martí-Renom,et al.  MODBASE: a database of annotated comparative protein structure models and associated resources , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[39]  Steven E Brenner,et al.  The Impact of Structural Genomics: Expectations and Outcomes , 2005, Science.

[40]  J Andrew McCammon,et al.  Molecular docking of balanol to dynamics snapshots of protein kinase A , 2005, Proteins.

[41]  A. Caflisch,et al.  Functional Plasticity in the Substrate Binding Site of β-Secretase , 2005 .

[42]  Timothy M Willson,et al.  A Ligand-mediated Hydrogen Bond Network Required for the Activation of the Mineralocorticoid Receptor*[boxs] , 2005, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[43]  C. Lyttle,et al.  Molecular and Pharmacological Properties of a Potent and Selective Novel Nonsteroidal Progesterone Receptor Agonist Tanaproget* , 2005, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[44]  C. Camacho,et al.  Modeling side‐chains using molecular dynamics improve recognition of binding region in CAPRI targets , 2005, Proteins.

[45]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Hierarchical docking of databases of multiple ligand conformations. , 2005, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[46]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Representing receptor flexibility in ligand docking through relevant normal modes. , 2005, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[47]  Dakshanamurthy Sivanesan,et al.  In-silico Screening using Flexible Ligand Binding Pockets: A Molecular Dynamics-based Approach , 2005, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[48]  Leslie A Kuhn,et al.  Side‐chain flexibility in protein–ligand binding: The minimal rotation hypothesis , 2005, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[49]  T. Klabunde,et al.  Structure-based drug discovery using GPCR homology modeling: successful virtual screening for antagonists of the alpha1A adrenergic receptor. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[50]  Cathy H. Wu,et al.  The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[51]  Michael K. Gilson,et al.  Comparing Ligand Interactions with Multiple Receptors via Serial Docking , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[53]  G. Klebe,et al.  Successful virtual screening for a submicromolar antagonist of the neurokinin-1 receptor based on a ligand-supported homology model. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[54]  Brian K Shoichet,et al.  Testing a flexible-receptor docking algorithm in a model binding site. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[55]  A. Sali,et al.  Alignment of protein sequences by their profiles , 2004, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[57]  Takayoshi Kinoshita,et al.  A highly potent non-nucleoside adenosine deaminase inhibitor: efficient drug discovery by intentional lead hybridization. , 2004, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[58]  E. Bradley,et al.  Performance of 3D-database molecular docking studies into homology models. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[59]  Chi‐Huey Wong,et al.  HIV-1 protease: mechanism and drug discovery. , 2003, Organic & biomolecular chemistry.

[60]  Charles L. Brooks,et al.  Detailed analysis of grid‐based molecular docking: A case study of CDOCKER—A CHARMm‐based MD docking algorithm , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..

[61]  D. Diller,et al.  Kinases, homology models, and high throughput docking. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[62]  M L Teodoro,et al.  Conformational flexibility models for the receptor in structure based drug design. , 2003, Current pharmaceutical design.

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

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

[65]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Nuclear hormone receptor targeted virtual screening. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[66]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Structure‐based identification of binding sites, native ligands and potential inhibitors for G‐protein coupled receptors , 2003, Proteins.

[67]  T. Kinoshita,et al.  Structure-based de novo design of non-nucleoside adenosine deaminase inhibitors. , 2003, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[68]  Keiji Tanaka,et al.  Binding mode of ecdysone agonists to the receptor: comparative modeling and docking studies , 2003, Journal of molecular modeling.

[69]  Michael K. Gilson,et al.  Enhanced docking with the mining minima optimizer: Acceleration and side‐chain flexibility , 2002, J. Comput. Chem..

[70]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Protein‐based virtual screening of chemical databases. II. Are homology models of g‐protein coupled receptors suitable targets? , 2002, Proteins.

[71]  Osvaldo Olmea,et al.  MAMMOTH (Matching molecular models obtained from theory): An automated method for model comparison , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[72]  B. Matthews,et al.  A model binding site for testing scoring functions in molecular docking. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[73]  A. Sali,et al.  Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. , 2000, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[74]  J Andrew McCammon,et al.  Studying enzyme binding specificity in acetylcholinesterase using a combined molecular dynamics and multiple docking approach. , 2002, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[75]  D. Moras,et al.  Molecular recognition of agonist ligands by RXRs. , 2002, Molecular endocrinology.

[76]  J. Mccammon,et al.  Computational drug design accommodating receptor flexibility: the relaxed complex scheme. , 2002, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[77]  András Fiser,et al.  Molecular Biophysics , 2022 .

[78]  I. Enyedy,et al.  Discovery of small-molecule inhibitors of Bcl-2 through structure-based computer screening. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[79]  A. Sali,et al.  Protein Structure Prediction and Structural Genomics , 2001, Science.

[80]  Andrzej Kolinski,et al.  Model of three‐dimensional structure of vitamin D receptor and its binding mechanism with 1α,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 , 2001, Proteins.

[81]  R Abagyan,et al.  High-throughput docking for lead generation. , 2001, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[82]  Richard Bonneau,et al.  Ab initio protein structure prediction: progress and prospects. , 2001, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[83]  T. Bishop,et al.  Homology modeling using multiple molecular dynamics simulations and docking studies of the human androgen receptor ligand binding domain bound to testosterone and nonsteroidal ligands. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[84]  R M Stroud,et al.  Approaches to solving the rigid receptor problem by identifying a minimal set of flexible residues during ligand docking. , 2001, Chemistry & biology.

[85]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[86]  Peter W. Rose,et al.  Parallel simulated tempering dynamics of ligand–protein binding with ensembles of protein conformations , 2001 .

[87]  M Rarey,et al.  Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[88]  Haiyan Liu,et al.  Structure-based ligand design for flexible proteins: Application of new F-DycoBlock , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[89]  A. Spada,et al.  Crystal structures of human factor Xa complexed with potent inhibitors. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[90]  H. Broughton,et al.  A method for including protein flexibility in protein-ligand docking: improving tools for database mining and virtual screening. , 2000, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[91]  D. Baker,et al.  A surprising simplicity to protein folding , 2000, Nature.

[92]  Ernst Althaus,et al.  A combinatorial approach to protein docking with flexible side-chains , 2000, RECOMB '00.

[93]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Recent developments in structure-based drug design , 2000, Journal of Molecular Medicine.

[94]  M. Murcko,et al.  Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[95]  T Lengauer,et al.  Two-stage method for protein-ligand docking. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[96]  Harold A. Scheraga,et al.  Flexible docking simulations: Scaled collective variable Monte Carlo minimization approach using Bezier splines, and comparison with a standard Monte Carlo algorithm , 1999, J. Comput. Chem..

[97]  A. Sali 100,000 protein structures for the biologist , 1998, Nature Structural Biology.

[98]  Gennady M Verkhivker,et al.  Predicting structural effects in HIV‐1 protease mutant complexes with flexible ligand docking and protein side‐chain optimization , 1998, Proteins.

[99]  J. Tainer,et al.  Screening a peptidyl database for potential ligands to proteins with side‐chain flexibility , 1998, Proteins.

[100]  Amedeo Caflisch,et al.  Docking small ligands in flexible binding sites , 1998, J. Comput. Chem..

[101]  F E Cohen,et al.  Leishmania major: molecular modeling of cysteine proteases and prediction of new nonpeptide inhibitors. , 1997, Experimental parasitology.

[102]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Flexible docking of a ligand peptide to a receptor protein by multicanonical molecular dynamics simulation , 1997 .

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

[104]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Molecular docking to ensembles of protein structures. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[105]  Robert Huber,et al.  X-ray Structure of Active Site-inhibited Clotting Factor Xa , 1996, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[106]  R J Fletterick,et al.  Structure-based design of parasitic protease inhibitors. , 1996, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[107]  A Sali,et al.  Comparative protein modeling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. , 1996, Molecular medicine today.

[108]  Daniel A. Gschwend,et al.  Molecular docking towards drug discovery , 1996, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[109]  C. Hodge,et al.  Fitting an inhibitor into the active site of thermolysin: A molecular dynamics case study , 1996, Proteins.

[110]  R. Laskowski SURFNET: a program for visualizing molecular surfaces, cavities, and intermolecular interactions. , 1995, Journal of molecular graphics.

[111]  Andrej ⩽ali,et al.  Comparative protein modeling by satisfaction of spatial restraints , 1995 .

[112]  D. Abendschein,et al.  Role of thrombin compared with factor Xa in the procoagulant activity of whole blood clots. , 1995, Circulation.

[113]  T. Bhat,et al.  Structure of HIV-1 protease with KNI-272, a tight-binding transition-state analog containing allophenylnorstatine. , 1995, Structure.

[114]  Pieter F. W. Stouten,et al.  A molecular mechanics/grid method for evaluation of ligand–receptor interactions , 1995, J. Comput. Chem..

[115]  Yuan-Ping Pang,et al.  Prediction of the binding sites of huperzine A in acetylcholinesterase by docking studies , 1994, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[116]  H J Berendsen,et al.  Molecular dynamics simulation of the docking of substrates to proteins , 1994, Proteins.

[117]  A. Leach,et al.  Ligand docking to proteins with discrete side-chain flexibility. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[119]  D. M. Ryan,et al.  Rational design of potent sialidase-based inhibitors of influenza virus replication , 1993, Nature.

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

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

[122]  S. Kim,et al.  "Soft docking": matching of molecular surface cubes. , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[123]  Conrad C. Huang,et al.  The MIDAS display system , 1988 .

[124]  J M Blaney,et al.  A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. , 1982, Journal of molecular biology.

[125]  S. Shapiro,et al.  An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples) , 1965 .

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

[127]  Michael K. Gilson,et al.  Screening Drug-Like Compounds by Docking to Homology Models: A Systematic Study , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[128]  A. Caflisch,et al.  Functional plasticity in the substrate binding site of beta-secretase. , 2005, Structure.

[129]  Andrej Sali,et al.  Comparative Protein Structure Modeling and its Applications to Drug Discovery , 2004 .

[130]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Ligand-supported homology modeling of g-protein-coupled receptor sites: models sufficient for successful virtual screening. , 2004, Angewandte Chemie.

[131]  Jung-Hsin Lin,et al.  The relaxed complex method: Accommodating receptor flexibility for drug design with an improved scoring scheme. , 2003, Biopolymers.

[132]  Harvey Rubin,et al.  Cysteine proteinases from distinct cellular compartments are recruited to phagocytic vesicles by Entamoeba histolytica. , 2002, Molecular and biochemical parasitology.

[133]  D. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking to multiple target structures: Incorporation of protein mobility and structural water heterogeneity in AutoDock , 2002, Proteins.

[134]  Youngshang Pak,et al.  Application of a Molecular Dynamics Simulation Method with a Generalized Effective Potential to the Flexible Molecular Docking Problems , 2000 .

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

[136]  Amedeo Caflisch,et al.  Docking by Monte Carlo minimization with a solvation correction: Application to an FKBP - substrate complex , 1997, J. Comput. Chem..

[137]  Steven E. Ealick,et al.  Pharmacologically relevant proteins , 1993 .