MoDock: A multi-objective strategy improves the accuracy for molecular docking

BackgroundAs a main method of structure-based virtual screening, molecular docking is the most widely used in practice. However, the non-ideal efficacy of scoring functions is thought as the biggest barrier which hinders the improvement of the molecular docking method.ResultsA new multi-objective strategy for molecular docking, named as MoDock, is presented to further improve the docking accuracy with available scoring functions. Instead of simple combination of multiple objectives with fixed weight factors, an aggregate function is adopted to approximate the real solution of the original multi-objective and multi-constraint problem, which will simultaneously smooth the energy surface of the combined scoring functions. Then, method of centers and genetic algorithm are used to find the optimal solution. Tests of MoDock against the GOLD test data set reveal the multi-objective strategy improves the docking accuracy over the individual scoring functions. Meanwhile, a 70% ratio of the good docking solutions with the RMSD value below 1.0 Å outperforms other 6 commonly used docking programs, even with a flexible receptor docking program included.ConclusionsThe results show MoDock is an effective strategy to overcome the deviations brought by single scoring function, and improves the prediction power of molecular docking.

[1]  Maria A Miteva,et al.  Structure-based virtual ligand screening: recent success stories. , 2009, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

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

[3]  Philip E. Bourne,et al.  A Machine Learning-Based Method To Improve Docking Scoring Functions and Its Application to Drug Repurposing , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[4]  Maria Kontoyianni,et al.  Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[5]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  An Extensive Test of 14 Scoring Functions Using the PDBbind Refined Set of 800 Protein-Ligand Complexes , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[6]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Comparison of Topological, Shape, and Docking Methods in Virtual Screening , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

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

[9]  Kenji Onodera,et al.  Evaluations of Molecular Docking Programs for Virtual Screening , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[10]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Adding calorimetric data to decision making in lead discovery: a hot tip , 2010, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

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

[12]  Zhihai Liu,et al.  Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on a Diverse Test Set , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[13]  D. J. Price,et al.  Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  W Patrick Walters,et al.  A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance , 2004, Proteins.

[15]  Xicheng Wang,et al.  An improved adaptive genetic algorithm for protein–ligand docking , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[16]  Li Xingsi,et al.  AN ENTROPY-BASED AGGREGATE METHOD FOR MINIMAX OPTIMIZATION , 1992 .

[17]  Richard A. Friesner,et al.  Comparative Performance of Several Flexible Docking Programs and Scoring Functions: Enrichment Studies for a Diverse Set of Pharmaceutically Relevant Targets , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[18]  José M. García,et al.  High-Throughput parallel blind Virtual Screening using BINDSURF , 2012, BMC Bioinformatics.

[19]  E. Jaeger,et al.  Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. , 2005, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.

[20]  Renxiao Wang,et al.  Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  P. Kollman,et al.  An all atom force field for simulations of proteins and nucleic acids , 1986, Journal of computational chemistry.

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

[23]  Garland R. Marshall,et al.  PHOENIX: A Scoring Function for Affinity Prediction Derived Using High-Resolution Crystal Structures and Calorimetry Measurements , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[24]  Wolfgang Wenzel,et al.  Receptor‐specific scoring functions derived from quantum chemical models improve affinity estimates for in‐silico drug discovery , 2007, Proteins.

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

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

[27]  Yanli Wang,et al.  Structure-Based Virtual Screening for Drug Discovery: a Problem-Centric Review , 2012, The AAPS Journal.

[28]  Yongbo Hu,et al.  Comparison of Several Molecular Docking Programs: Pose Prediction and Virtual Screening Accuracy , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[29]  Martin Stahl,et al.  Binding site characteristics in structure-based virtual screening: evaluation of current docking tools , 2003, Journal of molecular modeling.

[30]  Maria Kontoyianni,et al.  Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening , 2005, J. Comput. Chem..

[31]  Jin Li,et al.  On Evaluating Molecular-Docking Methods for Pose Prediction and Enrichment Factors , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[33]  Andreas Steffen,et al.  AIScore Chemically Diverse Empirical Scoring Function Employing Quantum Chemical Binding Energies of Hydrogen-Bonded Complexes , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[35]  I. Kuntz,et al.  DOCK 6: combining techniques to model RNA-small molecule complexes. , 2009, RNA.

[36]  A. Ortiz,et al.  Evaluation of docking functions for protein-ligand docking. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[38]  Zhi Chen,et al.  An Improved PMF Scoring Function for Universally Predicting the Interactions of a Ligand with Protein, DNA, and RNA , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[39]  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.

[40]  Matthew P. Repasky,et al.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.