Prediction of luciferase inhibitors by the high-performance MIEC-GBDT approach based on interaction energetic patterns.

High-throughput screening (HTS) is widely applied in many fields ranging from drug discovery to clinical diagnostics and toxicity assessment. Firefly luciferase is commonly used as a reporter to monitor the effect of chemical compounds on the activity of a specific target or pathway in HTS. However, the false positive rate of luciferase-based HTS is relatively high because many artifacts or promiscuous compounds that have direct interaction with the luciferase reporter enzyme are usually identified as active compounds (hits). Therefore, it is necessary to develop a rapid screening method to identify these compounds that can inhibit the luciferase activity directly. In this study, a virtual screening (VS) classification model called MIEC-GBDT (MIEC: Molecular Interaction Energy Components; GBDT: Gradient Boosting Decision Tree) was developed to distinguish luciferase inhibitors from non-inhibitors. The MIECs calculated by Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area (MM/GBSA) free energy decomposition were used to energetically characterize the binding pattern of each small molecule at the active site of luciferase, and then the GBDT algorithm was employed to construct the classifiers based on MIECs. The predictions to the test set show that the optimized MIEC-GBDT model outperformed molecular docking and MM/GBSA rescoring. The best MIEC-GBDT model based on the MIECs with the energy terms of ΔGele, ΔGvdW, ΔGGB, and ΔGSA achieves the prediction accuracies of 87.2% and 90.3% for the inhibitors and non-inhibitors in the test sets, respectively. Moreover, the energetic analysis of the vital residues suggests that the energetic contributions of the vital residues to the binding of inhibitors are quite different from those to the binding of non-inhibitors. These results suggest that the MIEC-GBDT model is reliable and can be used as a powerful tool to identify potential interference compounds in luciferase-based HTS experiments.

[1]  W. C. Still,et al.  Approximate atomic surfaces from linear combinations of pairwise overlaps (LCPO) , 1999 .

[2]  Araz Jakalian,et al.  Fast, efficient generation of high‐quality atomic charges. AM1‐BCC model: I. Method , 2000 .

[3]  D. Case,et al.  Modification of the Generalized Born Model Suitable for Macromolecules , 2000 .

[4]  J. Friedman.  Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. , 2001 .

[5]  R. Friesner,et al.  Evaluation and Reparametrization of the OPLS-AA Force Field for Proteins via Comparison with Accurate Quantum Chemical Calculations on Peptides† , 2001 .

[6]  D. Case,et al.  Insights into protein-protein binding by binding free energy calculation and free energy decomposition for the Ras-Raf and Ras-RalGDS complexes. , 2003, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  Ray Luo,et al.  A Poisson–Boltzmann dynamics method with nonperiodic boundary condition , 2003 .

[8]  D. Case,et al.  Exploring protein native states and large‐scale conformational changes with a modified generalized born model , 2004, Proteins.

[9]  Junmei Wang,et al.  Development and testing of a general amber force field , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[10]  Holger Gohlke,et al.  The Amber biomolecular simulation programs , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[11]  William Thomsen,et al.  Functional assays for screening GPCR targets. , 2005, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[12]  W. Sugiura,et al.  Use of New T-Cell-Based Cell Lines Expressing Two Luciferase Reporters for Accurately Evaluating Susceptibility to Anti-Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Drugs , 2006, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[13]  Adel Bakhtiarova,et al.  Resveratrol inhibits firefly luciferase. , 2006, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[14]  Ray Luo,et al.  How well does Poisson-Boltzmann implicit solvent agree with explicit solvent? A quantitative analysis. , 2006, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[15]  V. Hornak,et al.  Comparison of multiple Amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters , 2006, Proteins.

[16]  Christopher P Austin,et al.  High-throughput screening assays for the identification of chemical probes. , 2007, Nature chemical biology.

[17]  F. Fan,et al.  Bioluminescent assays for high-throughput screening. , 2007, Assay and drug development technologies.

[18]  Christopher P Austin,et al.  Characterization of chemical libraries for luciferase inhibitory activity. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[19]  James Inglese,et al.  A specific mechanism for nonspecific activation in reporter-gene assays. , 2008, ACS chemical biology.

[20]  A. IJzerman,et al.  False positives in a reporter gene assay: identification and synthesis of substituted N-pyridin-2-ylbenzamides as competitive inhibitors of firefly luciferase. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  D. Case,et al.  Characterization of domain-peptide interaction interface: a case study on the amphiphysin-1 SH3 domain. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  Christopher P Austin,et al.  A basis for reduced chemical library inhibition of firefly luciferase obtained from directed evolution. , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[23]  Yanli Wang,et al.  A novel method for mining highly imbalanced high-throughput screening data in PubChem , 2009, Bioinform..

[24]  Wei Zhang,et al.  Characterization of Domain-Peptide Interaction Interface , 2009, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[25]  S. Inouye.  Firefly luciferase: an adenylate-forming enzyme for multicatalytic functions , 2010, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences.

[26]  D. Auld,et al.  Illuminating insights into firefly luciferase and other bioluminescent reporters used in chemical biology. , 2010, Chemistry & biology.

[27]  Guillaume Bouvier,et al.  Automatic clustering of docking poses in virtual screening process using self-organizing map , 2010, Bioinform..

[28]  James Inglese,et al.  Apparent activity in high-throughput screening: origins of compound-dependent assay interference. , 2010, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[29]  Anton Simeonov,et al.  Molecular basis for the high-affinity binding and stabilization of firefly luciferase by PTC124 , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  J. M. Leitão,et al.  Firefly luciferase inhibition. , 2010, Journal of photochemistry and photobiology. B, Biology.

[31]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Assessing the Performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA Methods. 1. The Accuracy of Binding Free Energy Calculations Based on Molecular Dynamics Simulations , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[32]  Roman A. Laskowski,et al.  LigPlot+: Multiple Ligand-Protein Interaction Diagrams for Drug Discovery , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[33]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Assessing the performance of the molecular mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann surface area and molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area methods. II. The accuracy of ranking poses generated from docking , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[34]  Wei Wang,et al.  Characterization of domain-peptide interaction interface: prediction of SH3 domain-mediated protein-protein interaction network in yeast by generic structure-based models. , 2012, Journal of proteome research.

[35]  S. Vetter,et al.  The nuclear factor κB inhibitor (E)-2-fluoro-4′-methoxystilbene inhibits firefly luciferase , 2012, Bioscience reports.

[36]  Thanyada Rungrotmongkol,et al.  Molecular Dynamic Behavior and Binding Affinity of Flavonoid Analogues to the Cyclin Dependent Kinase 6/cyclin D Complex , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[37]  Youhong Hu,et al.  Identification and synthesis of substituted pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidines as novel firefly luciferase inhibitors. , 2012, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[38]  Anton Simeonov,et al.  Firefly luciferase in chemical biology: a compendium of inhibitors, mechanistic evaluation of chemotypes, and suggested use as a reporter. , 2012, Chemistry & biology.

[39]  K. Parsa,et al.  Pyrrolo[2,3-b]quinoxalines as inhibitors of firefly luciferase: their Cu-mediated synthesis and evaluation as false positives in a reporter gene assay. , 2012, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[40]  R. Laatikainen,et al.  Discovery of 5-benzyl-3-phenyl-4,5-dihydroisoxazoles and 5-benzyl-3-phenyl-1,4,2-dioxazoles as potent firefly luciferase inhibitors. , 2013, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[41]  Jian Wang,et al.  Characterization of Small Molecule Binding. I. Accurate Identification of Strong Inhibitors in Virtual Screening , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[42]  Youyong Li,et al.  Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 3. The impact of force fields and ligand charge models. , 2013, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[43]  Gerhard F. Ecker,et al.  Ligand and Structure-Based Classification Models for Prediction of P-Glycoprotein Inhibitors , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[44]  A. Braeuning.  Firefly luciferase inhibition: a widely neglected problem , 2014, Archives of Toxicology.

[45]  Shu-Shen Liu,et al.  Predicting the mixture effects of three pesticides by integrating molecular simulation with concentration addition modeling , 2014 .

[46]  Christian Kramer,et al.  Improving Docking Results via Reranking of Ensembles of Ligand Poses in Multiple X-ray Protein Conformations with MM-GBSA , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[47]  Elisa Michelini,et al.  Exploiting in vitro and in vivo bioluminescence for the implementation of the three Rs principle (replacement, reduction, and refinement) in drug discovery , 2014, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry.

[48]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 5. Improved docking performance using high solute dielectric constant MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA rescoring. , 2014, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[49]  Youyong Li,et al.  Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 4. Accuracies of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methodologies evaluated by various simulation protocols using PDBbind data set. , 2014, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[50]  Dan Li,et al.  Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity Evaluation in Drug Discovery. 14. Prediction of Human Pregnane X Receptor Activators by Using Naive Bayesian Classification Technique. , 2015, Chemical research in toxicology.

[51]  Jayme L. Dahlin,et al.  PAINS in the Assay: Chemical Mechanisms of Assay Interference and Promiscuous Enzymatic Inhibition Observed during a Sulfhydryl-Scavenging HTS , 2015, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[52]  Wei Zhang,et al.  Synthesis and biological evaluation of a series of aryl triazoles as firefly luciferase inhibitors , 2015 .

[53]  Shu-Shen Liu,et al.  Blocking the entrance of AMP pocket results in hormetic stimulation of imidazolium-based ionic liquids to firefly luciferase. , 2015, Chemosphere.

[54]  Xiaosu Zhu,et al.  Chemical and in vitro biological information to predict mouse liver toxicity using recursive random forests , 2016, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[55]  Dan Li,et al.  Assessing the performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 6. Capability to predict protein-protein binding free energies and re-rank binding poses generated by protein-protein docking. , 2016, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[56]  Lior Rokach,et al.  Decision forest: Twenty years of research , 2016, Inf. Fusion.

[57]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  Constructing and Validating High-Performance MIEC-SVM Models in Virtual Screening for Kinases: A Better Way for Actives Discovery , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[58]  Tingjun Hou,et al.  ADMET evaluation in drug discovery: 15. Accurate prediction of rat oral acute toxicity using relevance vector machine and consensus modeling , 2016, Journal of Cheminformatics.