Predicting ligand binding energies

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 28-33

  Hirst, Jonathan D ^a  

^a SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001872472     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. van de Waterbeemd H, Testa B, Folkers G (Eds): ComputerAssisted Lead Finding and Optimization (11th European symposium on Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships, Lausanne, Switzerland, 199S); Verlag Helvetica Chimica Acta and VCH, 1997. 34 chapters and 550 pages covering a wide range of related topics, including applications of neural networks, docking, molecular similarity/diversity and its application to combinatorial chemistry, 3D-QSAR.
2. Bohacek RS, McMartin C: Modern computational chemistry and drug discovery: structure generating programs. Curr Opin Chem B/b/(1997) 1:157-161. A useful summary of methods for designing molecules to fit and chemically complement known binding sites. Recent successes of these methods in "virtual1 high throughput screening are discussed.
3. Broughton HB: Molecular modeling. Curr Opin Chem Bio/ (1997)1:392-398.
4. Güson MK, Given JA, Bush BL, McGammon JA: The statistical-thermodynamic basis for computation of binding affinities: a critical review. Biophys J (1997) 72:1047-1069.
5. Lamb ML, Jorgensen WL: Computational approaches to molecular recognition Curr Opin Chem £/b/(1997) 1:449457. A succinct review of free energy perturbation methods, with a focus on calculations of the free energy of binding for host-guest and protein-ligand complexes.
6. Marrone TJ, Briggs JB, McCammon JA: Structure-based drug design: computational advances. Annu Rev Pharmacol rowo/(1997) 37:71-90.
7. Kubinyi H: QSAR and 3D QSAR in drug design Part 1: methodology Drug Design Today (I997) 2:457-467. A good introduction to the area for the non-expert. Some historical background is provided. Mansch analysis and Free Wilson analysis are described. An accessible introduction to the CoMFA approach is given. A number of useful books and reviews are listed in the bibliography.
8. Kubinyi H: QSAR and 3D QSAR in drug design Part 2: applications and problems Drug Design 7bcoy(1997) 2:538-546.
9. So S-S, Karplus M: Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships from molecular similarity matrices and genetic neural networks. 1. Method and validations. JMedChem (1997) 40:4347-4359.
10. So S-S, Karplus M: Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships from molecular similarity matrices and genetic neural networks. 2. Applications. J Med Chem (1997) 40:4360-4371.
11. King RD, Muggleton SH, Srinivasan A, Sternberg MJE: Structure-activity relationships derived by machine learning: the use of atoms and their bond connectivities to predict mutagenicity by inductive logic programming. Proc Nail Acad Sei USA (1996) 93:438-442.
12. King RD, Srinivasan A: The discovery of indicator variables for QSAR using inductive logic programming. J CompAided Mol Design (1997) 11:571-580.
13. Hirst JD: Nonlinear quantitative structure-activity relationship for the inhibition of dihydrofolate reductase by pyrimidines. J Med Chem (1996) 39:3526-3532. A straightforward nonparametric method capable of modeling nonlinear QSARs is tested on a well studied data set, and shown to be as accurate as more cumbersome methods, such as neural networks and machine learning.
14. Cramer III RD, Patterson DE, Bunce JD: Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J Am Chem Soc (1988)110:5959-5967.
15. Wold S, Marten H, Wold H: The multivariate calibration problem in chemistry solved by the PLS method. In: Matrix Pencils (Lecture Notes in Mathematics), RA Kagstrom (Eds), Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg (1983):286-293.
16. Cramer III RD: Partial least squares (PLS): Its strengths and limitations. Perspect Drug Discovery Design (1993) 1:269278.
17. Ortiz AR, Pastor M, Palomer A, Crucian! G, Gago F, Wade RC: Reliability of comparative molecular field analysis models: effects of data scaling and variable selection using a set of human synovial fluid phospholipase A, inhibitors. J Med Chem(\W7) 40:1136-1148.
18. Pastor M, Cruciani G, Clementi S: Smart region definition: a new way to improve the predictive ability and interpretability of three-dimensional quantitative structureactivity relationships. J Med Chem (1997) 40:1455-1464. An appealing methodology for reducing the large number of gridfield variables in 3D-QSAR. The new analysis considers regions constructed from spatially related individual descriptor variables that contain similar chemical information.
19. FederovW: Theory of Optimal Experiments, Academic Press, New York, 1972.
20. Cho SJ, Tropsha A: Cross-validated r-guided region selection for comparative molecular field analysis: A simple method to achieve consistent results. J Med Chem (1995)38:1060-1066.
21. Watson KA, Mitchell EP, Johnson LN, Cruciani G, Son JC, Bichard CJF, Fleet GWJ, Oikonomakos NG, Kontou M, Zographos SE: Glucose analogue inhibitors of glycogen phosphorylase: from crystallographic analysis to drug prediction using GRID force-field and GOLPE variable selection. Acta Crysta/fogr(\995) 051:458-472.
22. Hopfinger AJ, Wang S, Tokarski JS, Jin B, Albuquerque M, Madhav PJ, Duraiswami C: Construction of 3D-QSAR models using the 4D-QSAR analysis formalism. J Am C/te/77 Soc (1997) 119:10509-10524. The natural extension to 3D-OSAR: 4D-QSAR. The fourth dimension is not time, but ensemble averaging.
23. Crippen GM: Validation of EGSTTE2, a mixed integer program for deducing objective site models from experimental data. J Med Chem (1997) 40:3161 -3172. An interesting alignment-free method for 3D-QSAR. This paper challenges a number of the assumptions of CoMFA-like methods and takes an alternative approach.
24. Schnitker J, Gopalaswamy R, Crippen GM: Objective models for steroid binding sites of human globulins. J ComputAidedMolDes(\QS7) 11:93-110.
25. Gilson MK, Given JA, Head MS: A new class of models for computing receptor-ligand binding affinities. Chem Biol (1997)4:87-92.
26. Froloff N, Windemuth A, Honig B: On the calculation of binding free energies using continuum methods: Application to MHC class I protein-peptide Interactions. Protein Science-(1997) 6:1293-1301.
27. Novotny J, Bmccoleri RE, Davis M, Sharp KA: Empirical free energy calculations: a blind test and further improvements to the method. J Mol Biol (\3°i7) 268:401-411.
28. Warwicker J, Watson HC: Calculation of the electrostatic potential In the active site cleft due to α-helix dipoles. J Mol Biol (1992) 157:671-679.
29. Lee L-P, Tidor B: Optimization of electrostatic binding free energy. J Chem Phys (1997) 106:8681-8690.
30. Ortiz AR, Pisabarro MT, Gago F, Wade RC: Prediction of drug binding affinities by comparative binding energy analysis. JMedChem (1995) 38:2681-2691.
31. Pérez C, Pastor M, Ortiz AR, Gago F: Comparative binding energy analysis of HIV-1 protease inhibitors: incorporation of solvent effects and validation as a powerful tool in receptor-based drug design. J Med Chem (1998) 41:836852. Solvent effects are incorporated into the comparative binding energy (COMBINE) analysis and applied to HIV-1 protease inhibitors. The method derives a relationship based on a weighted sum of a subset of fragment-based energy contributions. This relationship improves on a previous molecular mechanics receptor-based QSAR model.
32. Tokarski JS, Hopfinger AJ: Prediction of ligand-receptor binding thermodynamics by free energy force field (FEFF) 3D-Q5AR analysis: Application to a set of peptidometic renin inhibitors. J Chem Inf Comput Sei(1997) 37:792-811.
33. Babine RE, Bender SL: Molecular recognition of proteinligand complexes: applications to drug design. Chem Rev (1997)97:1359-1472.
34. Bernstein FC, Koetzle TF, Williams GJB, Meyer EF, Brice MD, Rodgers JR, Kennard O, Shimanouchi T, Tasumi M: The Protein Date Bank: a computer-based archival file for macro-molecular structures. J MolBiol'(1977) 112:535-542.
35. DeWitte RS, Shakhnovich El: SMoG: denovodesign method based on simple, fast, and accurate free energy estimates. 1. Methodology and supporting evidence. J Am Chem Soc (1996)118:11733-11744.
36. DeWitte RS, Ishchenko AV, Shakhnovich El: SMoG: de novo design method based on simple, fast, and accurate free energy estimates. 2. Case studies in molecular design. JAm Chem Soc (1997) 119:4608-4617. The potential of the de novo design method, SMoG, and its application are illustrated by example.
37. Eldridge MD, Murray CW, Auton TR, Paoline GV, Mee RP: Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes. J Comp-AidedMol Design (1997)11:425-445.
38. Zhang C, Vasmatzis G, Comette JL, DeUsi C: Determination of atomic desolvation energies from the structures of crystallized proteins. J'MolBiol'(1997) 267:707-726.
39. Radmer RJ, Kollman PA: Free energy calculation methods: a theoretical and empirical comparison of numerical errors and a new method for qualitative estimates of free energy changes. JComp Chem (1997) 18: 902-919.
40. Fox T, Scanlan TS, Kollman PA: Ligand binding in the catalytic antibody 17E8. A free energy perturbation calculation study. JAmChem So; (1997) 119:11571-11577.
41. Fuxreiter M, Warshel A: Origin of the catalytic power of acetylcholinesterase: Computer simulation studies. J Am Chem S0
42. Kong X, Brooks III CL: X-dynamics: A new approach to free energy calculations. J Chem Phys (1996) 105:2414-2423.
43. Guo Z, Brooks III CL: Rapid screening of binding affinities: application of the X-dynamics method to a trypsin-inhibitor system. JAm Chem Soc{1998) 120:1920-1921.
44. Guo Z, Brooks III CL, Kong X: Efficient and flexible algorithm for free energy calculations using the λ-dynamics approach. J Phys Chem 5(1998) 102:2032-2036. In a test case, the λ-dynamics approach is shown to screen out ligands whose binding energies are more than 12.56 kJ mol' unfavorable than the best ligand within tens of picoseconds of simulation. Longer simulations provide more quantitative comparisons. The more quantitative calculations use feedback from previous simulations to enhance a biasing potential.
45. Essex JW, Severance DL, Tirado-Rives J, Jorgensen WL: Monte Carlo simulations for proteins: binding affinities for trypsin-benzamidine complexes via free-energy perturbations. J Phys Chem B (37) 101:9663-9669.
46. Pierce AC, Jorgensen WL: Computational binding studies of orthogonal cyclosporin-cyclophilin pairs. Angew Chem Int EdEng/(\S97) 36:1466-1469.
47. Resat H, Marrone TJ, McCammon JA: Enzyme-inhibitor association thermodynamics; explicit and continuum solvent studies. Blophys J(1997) 72:522-532.
48. Aqvist J, Medina C, Samuelsson J-E: A new method for predicting binding affinity in computer-aided drug design. Protein Eng (1994) 7:385-391.
49. Jones-Hertzog DK, Jorgensen WL: Binding affinities for sulfonamide inhibitors with human thrombin using Monte Carlo simulations with a linear response method. J Med Chem (1997) 40:1539-1549. Free energies of binding are computed using Monte Carlo sampling and a linear response approach. Free energy of binding is modeled by a linear trivariate equation, comprising electrostatic, van-derWaals and surface area terms, with the coefficients determined by fitting to seven inhibitors. Computational efficiency is gained by only needing to sample the two end s ta tes.
50. 4 lysozyme. JAm Chem Soc (1997) 119:2707-2714.
51. Helms V, Wade RC: Computational alchemy to calculate absolute protein-ligand binding free energy. JAm Chem 5oc(1998) 120:2710-2713.