A pharmacophore‐based evolutionary approach for screening selective estrogen receptor modulators

We developed a pharmacophore‐based evolutionary approach for virtual screening. This tool, termed the Generic Evolutionary Method for molecular DOCKing (GEMDOCK), combines an evolutionary approach with a new pharmacophore‐based scoring function. The former integrates discrete and continuous global search strategies with local search strategies to expedite convergence. The latter, integrating an empirical‐based energy function and pharmacological preferences (binding‐site pharmacological interactions and ligand preferences), simultaneously serves as the scoring function for both molecular docking and postdocking analyses to improve screening accuracy. We apply pharmacological interaction preferences to select the ligands that form pharmacological interactions with target proteins, and use the ligand preferences to eliminate the ligands that violate the electrostatic or hydrophilic constraints. We assessed the accuracy of our approach using human estrogen receptor (ER) and a ligand database from the comparative studies of Bissantz et al. (J Med Chem 2000;43:4759–4767). Using GEMDOCK, the average goodness‐of‐hit (GH) score was 0.83 and the average false‐positive rate was 0.13% for ER antagonists, and the average GH score was 0.48 and the average false‐positive rate was 0.75% for ER agonists. The performance of GEMDOCK was superior to competing methods such as GOLD and DOCK. We found that our pharmacophore‐based scoring function indeed was able to reduce the number of false positives; moreover, the resulting pharmacological interactions at the binding site, as well as ligand preferences, were important to the screening accuracy of our experiments. These results suggest that GEMDOCK constitutes a robust tool for virtual database screening. Proteins 2005. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  Gennady M Verkhivker,et al.  Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. , 1995, Chemistry & biology.

[2]  B. Fournier,et al.  Estrogen receptor modulators: identification and structure-activity relationships of potent ERalpha-selective tetrahydroisoquinoline ligands. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[4]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Evaluation of the FLEXX incremental construction algorithm for protein–ligand docking , 1999, Proteins.

[5]  P. Hajduk,et al.  Evaluation of PMF scoring in docking weak ligands to the FK506 binding protein. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[6]  Andrzej M. Brzozowski,et al.  Interaction of Transcriptional Intermediary Factor 2 Nuclear Receptor Box Peptides with the Coactivator Binding Site of Estrogen Receptor α* , 2002, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

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

[8]  Paul D Lyne,et al.  Structure-based virtual screening: an overview. , 2002, Drug discovery today.

[9]  Diane Joseph-McCarthy,et al.  Pharmacophore‐based molecular docking to account for ligand flexibility , 2003, Proteins.

[10]  Jinn-Moon Yang,et al.  Development and evaluation of a generic evolutionary method for protein–ligand docking , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[11]  Yi Li,et al.  Analysis and optimization of structure-based virtual screening protocols. 2. Examination of docked ligand orientation sampling methodology: mapping a pharmacophore for success. , 2003, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[12]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Molecular docking and high-throughput screening for novel inhibitors of protein tyrosine phosphatase-1B. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[13]  X Fradera,et al.  Similarity‐driven flexible ligand docking , 2000, Proteins.

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

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

[16]  Carolyn L. Smith,et al.  Molecular mechanisms of selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) action. , 2000, The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics.

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

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

[19]  David A. Agard,et al.  The Structural Basis of Estrogen Receptor/Coactivator Recognition and the Antagonism of This Interaction by Tamoxifen , 1998, Cell.

[20]  Thierry Langer,et al.  Chemical feature-based pharmacophores and virtual library screening for discovery of new leads. , 2003, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[21]  Nico P E Vermeulen,et al.  Prediction of ligand binding affinity and orientation of xenoestrogens to the estrogen receptor by molecular dynamics simulations and the linear interaction energy method. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[23]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Flexible docking under pharmacophore type constraints , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[25]  Todd J. A. Ewing,et al.  DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[26]  Jinn-Moon Yang,et al.  GEMDOCK: A generic evolutionary method for molecular docking , 2004, Proteins.

[27]  Osman F. Güner,et al.  Seeking novel leads through structure-based pharmacophore design , 2002 .

[28]  Irwin D. Kuntz,et al.  A genetic algorithm for structure-based de novo design , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[29]  H. Kubinyi QSAR and 3D QSAR in drug design Part 1: methodology , 1997 .

[30]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Comparison of Automatic Three-Dimensional Model Builders Using 639 X-ray Structures , 1994, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[31]  R. Gust,et al.  Synthesis, structural evaluation, and estrogen receptor interaction of 2,3-diarylpiperazines. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[32]  Chris P. Miller,et al.  SERMs: evolutionary chemistry, revolutionary biology. , 2002, Current pharmaceutical design.

[33]  U. Singh,et al.  A NEW FORCE FIELD FOR MOLECULAR MECHANICAL SIMULATION OF NUCLEIC ACIDS AND PROTEINS , 1984 .

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

[35]  J. Irwin,et al.  Lead discovery using molecular docking. , 2002, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[36]  C. Hansch,et al.  Radical toxicity of phenols: A reference point for obtaining perspective in the formulation of QSAR , 2001, Medicinal research reviews.