Molecular Docking of Intercalators and Groove-Binders to Nucleic Acids Using Autodock and Surflex

The molecular docking tools Autodock and Surflex accurately reproduce the crystallographic structures of a collection of small molecule ligands that have been shown to bind nucleic acids. Docking studies were performed with the intercalators daunorubicin and ellipticine and the minor groove binders distamycin and pentamidine. Autodock and Surflex dock daunorubicin and distamycin to their nucleic acid targets within a resolution of approximately 2 A, which is similar to the limit of the crystal structure resolution. However, for the top ranked poses, Autodock and Surflex both dock ellipticine into the correct site but in a different orientation compared to the crystal structure. This appears not only to be partly related to the symmetry of the target nucleic acid, as ellipticine is able to dock from either side of the intercalation site, but also due to the shape of the ligand and docking accuracy. Surflex docks pentamidine in a symmetrically equivalent orientation relative to the crystal structure, while Autodock was able to dock this molecule in the original orientation. In the case of the Surflex docking of pentamidine, the initial rmsd is misleading, given the symmetrical structure of pentamidine. Importantly, the ranking functions of both of these programs are able to return a top pose within approximately 2 A rmsd for daunorubicin, distamycin, and pentamidine and approximately 3 A rmsd for ellipticine compared to their respective crystal structures. Some docking challenges and potential pitfalls are explored, such as the importance of hydrogen treatment on ligands as well as the scoring functions of Autodock and Surflex. Overall for this set of complexes, Surflex is preferred over Autodock for virtual screening, as although the results are comparable, Surflex has significantly faster performance and ease of use under the optimal software conditions tested. These experiments show that molecular docking techniques can be successfully extended to include nucleic acid targets, a finding which has important implications for virtual screening applications and in the design of new small molecules to target therapeutically relevant morphologies of nucleic acids.

[1]  W. Denny,et al.  Non-covalent ligand/DNA interactions: minor groove binding agents. , 2007, Mutation research.

[2]  Dale L Boger,et al.  Sequence-selective DNA recognition: natural products and nature's lessons. , 2004, Chemistry & biology.

[3]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  A semiempirical free energy force field with charge‐based desolvation , 2007, J. Comput. Chem..

[4]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  DrugScoreRNAKnowledge-Based Scoring Function To Predict RNA-Ligand Interactions , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[5]  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..

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

[7]  J. Bissler,et al.  Triplex DNA and human disease. , 2007, Frontiers in bioscience : a journal and virtual library.

[8]  S. Broyles,et al.  Antiviral Activity of Distamycin A against Vaccinia Virus Is the Result of Inhibition of Postreplicative mRNA Synthesis , 2004, Journal of Virology.

[9]  Andrew N. Lane and Terence C. Jenkins,et al.  Structures and Properties of Multi-stranded Nucleic Acids , 2001 .

[10]  Hwangseo Park,et al.  Critical assessment of the automated AutoDock as a new docking tool for virtual screening , 2006, Proteins.

[11]  P. Baraldi,et al.  DNA minor groove binders as potential antitumor and antimicrobial agents , 2004, Medicinal research reviews.

[12]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Automatic identification and representation of protein binding sites for molecular docking , 1997, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[13]  TWO-WEEK Loan COpy,et al.  University of California , 1886, The American journal of dental science.

[14]  G L Seibel,et al.  Computerized selection of potential DNA binding compounds. , 1990, Anti-cancer drug design.

[15]  W. Denny,et al.  DNA and the chromosome – varied targets for chemotherapy , 2004, Cell & chromosome.

[16]  Christian Bailly,et al.  Molecular determinants for DNA minor groove recognition: design of a bis-guanidinium derivative of ethidium that is highly selective for AT-rich DNA sequences. , 2005, Biochemistry.

[17]  J. Chaires,et al.  A thermodynamic signature for drug-DNA binding mode. , 2006, Archives of biochemistry and biophysics.

[18]  Eva Frei,et al.  Molecular mechanisms of antineoplastic action of an anticancer drug ellipticine. , 2006, Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia.

[19]  Stephen Neidle,et al.  Synthesis of distamycin A polyamides targeting G-quadruplex DNA. , 2006, Organic & biomolecular chemistry.

[20]  Anna Maria Almerico,et al.  DNA minor groove binders: an overview on molecular modeling and QSAR approaches. , 2007, Current medicinal chemistry.

[21]  I. Kuntz,et al.  Flexible ligand docking: A multistep strategy approach , 1999, Proteins.

[22]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy , 2004, Proteins.

[23]  Osman A. B. S. M. Gani,et al.  Signposts of Docking and Scoring in Drug Design , 2007, Chemical biology & drug design.

[24]  D. Beveridge,et al.  Identification of an aminoacridine derivative that binds to RNA tetraloops. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[25]  Laurence H. Hurley,et al.  DNA and its associated processes as targets for cancer therapy , 2002, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[26]  Klaus R. Liedl,et al.  DNA Minor Groove Pharmacophores Describing Sequence Specific Properties. , 2007 .

[27]  Jonathan B. Chaires,et al.  Sequence and structural selectivity of nucleic acid binding ligands. , 1999 .

[28]  I M Kapetanovic,et al.  Computer-aided drug discovery and development (CADDD): in silico-chemico-biological approach. , 2008, Chemico-biological interactions.

[29]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function , 1998, J. Comput. Chem..

[30]  Maged Henary,et al.  Triplex selective 2-(2-naphthyl)quinoline compounds: origins of affinity and new design principles. , 2003, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[31]  J. Chaires,et al.  Competition dialysis: an assay to measure the structural selectivity of drug-nucleic acid interactions. , 2005, Current medicinal chemistry. Anti-cancer agents.

[32]  Gabriele Varani,et al.  Validation of automated docking programs for docking and database screening against RNA drug targets. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[33]  L. Hurley,et al.  G-quadruplex DNA: a potential target for anti-cancer drug design. , 2000, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[34]  J. Lown,,et al.  Synthetic DNA minor groove-binding drugs. , 1999, Pharmacology & therapeutics.

[35]  I D Kuntz,et al.  Structure-based discovery of ligands targeted to the RNA double helix. , 1997, Biochemistry.

[36]  D. van der Spoel,et al.  Efficient docking of peptides to proteins without prior knowledge of the binding site , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[37]  Remo Rohs,et al.  Molecular flexibility in ab initio drug docking to DNA: binding-site and binding-mode transitions in all-atom Monte Carlo simulations , 2005, Nucleic acids research.

[38]  D E Wemmer,et al.  Designed sequence-specific minor groove ligands. , 2000, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[39]  K Ravi Acharya,et al.  The advantages and limitations of protein crystal structures. , 2005, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[40]  D. V. Von Hoff,et al.  G-quadruplexes as targets for drug design. , 2000, Pharmacology & therapeutics.

[41]  J. Chaires,et al.  Sequence and structural selectivity of nucleic acid binding ligands. , 1999, Biochemistry.

[42]  C. E. Peishoff,et al.  A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[44]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions , 2002, Proteins.

[45]  L. Hurley,et al.  Secondary DNA structures as molecular targets for cancer therapeutics. , 2001, Biochemical Society transactions.

[46]  Christopher R. Corbeil,et al.  Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go , 2008, British journal of pharmacology.

[47]  Pavel Hobza,et al.  Intercalators. 1. Nature of stacking interactions between intercalators (ethidium, daunomycin, ellipticine, and 4',6-diaminide-2-phenylindole) and DNA base pairs. Ab initio quantum chemical, density functional theory, and empirical potential study. , 2003, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[48]  Stephen Neidle,et al.  Virtual screening of DNA minor groove binders. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[49]  Jeffrey Skolnick,et al.  Assessment of programs for ligand binding affinity prediction , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[50]  Reiji Teramoto,et al.  Supervised Consensus Scoring for Docking and Virtual Screening , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[51]  Diana C. Roe,et al.  Finding potential DNA-binding compounds by using molecular shape , 1994, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..