Relating the shape of protein binding sites to binding affinity profiles: is there an association?

BackgroundVarious pattern-based methods exist that use in vitro or in silico affinity profiles for classification and functional examination of proteins. Nevertheless, the connection between the protein affinity profiles and the structural characteristics of the binding sites is still unclear. Our aim was to investigate the association between virtual drug screening results (calculated binding free energy values) and the geometry of protein binding sites. Molecular Affinity Fingerprints (MAFs) were determined for 154 proteins based on their molecular docking energy results for 1,255 FDA-approved drugs. Protein binding site geometries were characterized by 420 PocketPicker descriptors. The basic underlying component structure of MAFs and binding site geometries, respectively, were examined by principal component analysis; association between principal components extracted from these two sets of variables was then investigated by canonical correlation and redundancy analyses.ResultsPCA analysis of the MAF variables provided 30 factors which explained 71.4% of the total variance of the energy values while 13 factors were obtained from the PocketPicker descriptors which cumulatively explained 94.1% of the total variance. Canonical correlation analysis resulted in 3 statistically significant canonical factor pairs with correlation values of 0.87, 0.84 and 0.77, respectively. Redundancy analysis indicated that PocketPicker descriptor factors explain 6.9% of the variance of the MAF factor set while MAF factors explain 15.9% of the total variance of PocketPicker descriptor factors. Based on the salient structures of the factor pairs, we identified a clear-cut association between the shape and bulkiness of the drug molecules and the protein binding site descriptors.ConclusionsThis is the first study to investigate complex multivariate associations between affinity profiles and the geometric properties of protein binding sites. We found that, except for few specific cases, the shapes of the binding pockets have relatively low weights in the determination of the affinity profiles of proteins. Since the MAF profile is closely related to the target specificity of ligand binding sites we can conclude that the shape of the binding site is not a pivotal factor in selecting drug targets. Nonetheless, based on strong specific associations between certain MAF profiles and specific geometric descriptors we identified, the shapes of the binding sites do have a crucial role in virtual drug design for certain drug categories, including morphine derivatives, benzodiazepines, barbiturates and antihistamines.

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

[2]  Robin Taylor,et al.  Comparing protein–ligand docking programs is difficult , 2005, Proteins.

[3]  Daisuke Kihara,et al.  Protein-protein docking using region-based 3D Zernike descriptors , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[4]  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.

[5]  Angelo D. Favia,et al.  Molecular docking for substrate identification: the short-chain dehydrogenases/reductases. , 2008, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  Andrei L Lomize,et al.  Bmc Structural Biology , 2022 .

[7]  Luhua Lai,et al.  Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[8]  E. Kellenberger,et al.  A simple and fuzzy method to align and compare druggable ligand‐binding sites , 2008, Proteins.

[9]  D. Joseph-McCarthy.  Computational approaches to structure-based ligand design. , 1999, Pharmacology & therapeutics.

[10]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. , 2004, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[11]  Zhenming Liu,et al.  Multiple-Docking and Affinity Fingerprint Methods for Protein Classification and Inhibitors Selection , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[12]  Uko Maran,et al.  A Comprehensive Docking Study on the Selectivity of Binding of Aromatic Compounds to Proteins , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

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

[14]  Guillermo Moyna,et al.  Shape signatures: a new approach to computer-aided ligand- and receptor-based drug design. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[15]  Natasja Brooijmans,et al.  Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. , 2003, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[16]  L. Guttman.  Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis , 1954 .

[17]  Jaques Reifman,et al.  DOVIS 2.0: an efficient and easy to use parallel virtual screening tool based on AutoDock 4.0 , 2008, Chemistry Central journal.

[18]  Campbell McInnes,et al.  Virtual screening strategies in drug discovery. , 2007, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[19]  Shoshana J. Wodak,et al.  LigASite—a database of biologically relevant binding sites in proteins with known apo-structures , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[20]  David M. Rocke,et al.  Predicting ligand binding to proteins by affinity fingerprinting. , 1995, Chemistry & biology.

[21]  David S. Wishart,et al.  DrugBank: a knowledgebase for drugs, drug actions and drug targets , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[22]  Sean Ekins,et al.  The importance of discerning shape in molecular pharmacology. , 2009, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[23]  G. Klebe,et al.  A new method to detect related function among proteins independent of sequence and fold homology. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[24]  G. Schneider,et al.  PocketPicker: analysis of ligand binding-sites with shape descriptors , 2007, Chemistry Central Journal.

[25]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Comparative virtual screening and novelty detection for NMDA-GlycineB antagonists , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[26]  Ni Ai,et al.  Identification of previously unrecognized antiestrogenic chemicals using a novel virtual screening approach. , 2006, Chemical research in toxicology.