LS‐align: an atom‐level, flexible ligand structural alignment algorithm for high‐throughput virtual screening

Motivation Sequence‐order independent structural comparison, also called structural alignment, of small ligand molecules is often needed for computer‐aided virtual drug screening. Although many ligand structure alignment programs are proposed, most of them build the alignments based on rigid‐body shape comparison which cannot provide atom‐specific alignment information nor allow structural variation; both abilities are critical to efficient high‐throughput virtual screening. Results We propose a novel ligand comparison algorithm, LS‐align, to generate fast and accurate atom‐level structural alignments of ligand molecules, through an iterative heuristic search of the target function that combines inter‐atom distance with mass and chemical bond comparisons. LS‐align contains two modules of Rigid‐LS‐align and Flexi‐LS‐align, designed for rigid‐body and flexible alignments, respectively, where a ligand‐size independent, statistics‐based scoring function is developed to evaluate the similarity of ligand molecules relative to random ligand pairs. Large‐scale benchmark tests are performed on prioritizing chemical ligands of 102 protein targets involving 1 415 871 candidate compounds from the DUD‐E (Database of Useful Decoys: Enhanced) database, where LS‐align achieves an average enrichment factor (EF) of 22.0 at the 1% cutoff and the AUC score of 0.75, which are significantly higher than other state‐of‐the‐art methods. Detailed data analyses show that the advanced performance is mainly attributed to the design of the target function that combines structural and chemical information to enhance the sensitivity of recognizing subtle difference of ligand molecules and the introduces of structural flexibility that help capture the conformational changes induced by the ligand‐receptor binding interactions. These data demonstrate a new avenue to improve the virtual screening efficiency through the development of sensitive ligand structural alignments. Availability and implementation http://zhanglab.ccmb.med.umich.edu/LS‐align/

[1]  Andy Jennings,et al.  Selection of Molecules Based on Shape and Electrostatic Similarity: Proof of Concept of "Electroforms" , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[2]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Recent Advances in Scaffold Hopping. , 2017, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[3]  Jeffrey Skolnick,et al.  LIGSIFT: an open-source tool for ligand structural alignment and virtual screening , 2015, Bioinform..

[4]  Xi Dai,et al.  HybridSim‐VS: a web server for large‐scale ligand‐based virtual screening using hybrid similarity recognition techniques , 2017, Bioinform..

[5]  Pierre Tufféry,et al.  Ligand scaffold hopping combining 3D maximal substructure search and molecular similarity , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[6]  J. Corcoran Modelling Extremal Events for Insurance and Finance , 2002 .

[7]  Chris Morley,et al.  Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox , 2011, J. Cheminformatics.

[8]  Olivier Sperandio,et al.  MED-SuMoLig: A New Ligand-Based Screening Tool for Efficient Scaffold Hopping , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[9]  Yang Zhang,et al.  Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality , 2004, Proteins.

[10]  Ruth Huey,et al.  Computational protein–ligand docking and virtual drug screening with the AutoDock suite , 2016, Nature Protocols.

[11]  P. Willett,et al.  Promoting Access to White Rose Research Papers Similarity-based Virtual Screening Using 2d Fingerprints , 2022 .

[12]  Peter Willett,et al.  Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints. , 2006, Drug discovery today.

[13]  Michael M. Mysinger,et al.  Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E): Better Ligands and Decoys for Better Benchmarking , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  J. Munkres ALGORITHMS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSIORTATION tROBLEMS* , 1957 .

[15]  Gert Thijs,et al.  Pharao: pharmacophore alignment and optimization. , 2008, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[16]  J. A. Grant,et al.  A fast method of molecular shape comparison: A simple application of a Gaussian description of molecular shape , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

[17]  Jeremy G. Vinter,et al.  FieldScreen: Virtual Screening Using Molecular Fields. Application to the DUD Data Set , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[18]  Naomie Salim,et al.  Analysis and Display of the Size Dependence of Chemical Similarity Coefficients , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[19]  Benjamin A. Ellingson,et al.  Conformer Generation with OMEGA: Algorithm and Validation Using High Quality Structures from the Protein Databank and Cambridge Structural Database , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[20]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Molecular similarity analysis in virtual screening: foundations, limitations and novel approaches. , 2007, Drug discovery today.

[21]  Oliver Koch,et al.  PyGOLD: a python based API for docking based virtual screening workflow generation , 2017, Bioinform..

[22]  Yang Zhang Protein structure prediction: when is it useful? , 2009, Current opinion in structural biology.

[23]  H. Kuhn The Hungarian method for the assignment problem , 1955 .

[24]  J. Skolnick,et al.  TM-align: a protein structure alignment algorithm based on the TM-score , 2005, Nucleic acids research.

[25]  W. Kabsch A solution for the best rotation to relate two sets of vectors , 1976 .