The role of macromolecular crystallography and structure for drug discovery: Advances and caveats

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 408-422

  Shoichet, Brian K ^a   Bussiere, Dirksen E ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Crystallographic refinement; Macromolecular crystallography; Molecular modeling; Structure based drug design

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CRYSTALLOGRAPHY; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG STRUCTURE; MOLECULAR MODEL; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY;

EID: 0033910487     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Wuthrich K: The second decade - into the third millennium. Nature Struct B/o/(1998) (Suppl):492-495.
2. Sanchez R, Sali A: Comparative proteins structure modeling in genomics. J Comp Phys (1999) 151:388-401.
3. Jones TA, Kleywegt GJ: CASP3 comparative modeling evaluation. Proteins (1999) 37 (Suppl 3):30-46. A concise overview of the recent CASP3 results in comparative modeling.
4. Brunger AT: X-ray crystallography and NMR reveal complementary views of structure and dynamics. Nature Struct Biol (1997) 4:862-865. An excellent analysis of the relative precision (and, by extension, accuracies) of crystallography and NMR.
5. Venclovas C, Zemla A, Fidelis K, Moult J: Some measures of comparative performance in the three CASPs. Proteins (1999) (Suppl 3):231-237. An examination of the advancement of modeling techniques over the three CASP meetings.
6. Shuker SB, Hajduk PJ, Meadows RP, Fesik SW: Discovering high-affinity ligands for proteins: SAR by NMR. Science (1996)274:1531-1534.
7. Moore JM: NMR screening in drug discovery. Curr Opin Biotechnol (1999) 10:54-58.
8. McPherson A (Ed): Crystallization of Biological Macromolecules. Cold Spring Harbor Press, NY, USA (1999).
9. D'Arcy A: Crystallizing proteins: A rational approach? Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (1994) 50:469-471.
10. Dyda F, Hickman AB, Jenkins TM, Engelman A, Craigie R, Davies DR: Crystal structure of the catalytic domain of HIV-1 integrase: Similarity to other polynucleotidyl transferases. Science (1994) 266:1981-1986.
11. Brunger AT: Free R value: Cross-validation in crystallography. Methods Enzymol (1997) 277:366-396. An informative overview of the free R-factor value and of the concept of cross-validation in crystallography.
12. Cate JH, Yusupov MM, Yusupova GZ, Earnest TN, Noller HF: X-ray crystal structures of 70S ribosome functional complexes. Science (1999) 285:2095-2104. Describes the crystal structure of 70S ribosomal complexes from a bacterium, which is an extremely large structure.
13. Ban N, Nissen P, Hansen J, Capel M, Moore PB, Steitz TA: Placement of protein and RNA structures into a 5 A resolution map of the SOS ribosomal subunit. Nature (1999) 400:841-847. Describes the crystal structure of the SOS ribosomal subunit from a bacterium, which is an extremely large structure.
14. demons WM Jr, May JL, Wimberty BT, McCutcheon JP, Capel MS, Ramakrishnan V: Structure of a bacterial 30S ribosomal subunit at 5.5 A resolution. Nature (1999) 400:833-840. Describes the crystal structure of the 305 ribosomal subunit from a bacterial thermophile, which is an extremely large structure.
15. Muchmore SW: Experiences with CCD detectors on a home X-ray source. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (1999) 55:1669-1671. A comparison of CCD detectors to image plate systems.
16. Lindley PR Macromolecular crystallography with a third-generation synchrotron source. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (1999) 55:1654-1662. An introduction to a third generation synchrotron source.
17. Greer JG, Burtey SK, Hendrickson W, Hodgson K, Johnson JE, Moffat JK, Rees DC, Smith J, Stevens R: Report of the structural biology subcommittee of the biological and environmental research advisory committee. (1998). http-Memtwww.er.doe.gov/production/ober/berac/final598.html.
18. McRee DL (Ed): Practical Protein Crystallography. Academic Press, CA, USA (1999).
19. Navaza J: AMoRe: An automated package for molecular replacement Acta C/ys/(1994) 50:157-163.
20. Adams PA, Pannu NS, Read RJ, Brunger AT: Extending the limits of molecular replacement through combined simulated annealing and maximum-likelihood refinement. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (1999) 55:181-190. An outline of the molecular replacement algorithm implemented in CNS.
21. Kissinger CR, Gehlhaar DK, Fogel DB: Rapid automated molecular replacement by evolutionary search. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (1999) 55:484-491.
22. Islam SA, Carvin D, Stemberg MJ, Blundell TL: HAD, a data bank of heavy-atom binding sites in protein crystals: A resource for use in multiple isomorphous replacement and anomalous scattering. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (1998)54:1199-1206.
23. Ogata CM: MAD phasing grows up. Nature Struct Biol (1998) 5:S638-S640.
24. Walsh MA, Evans G, Sanishvili R, Dementieva I, Joachimiak A: MAD data collection - current trends. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (1999) 55:1726-1732. Describes the latest in MAD data collection and structure determination.
25. Terwilliger TC, Berendzen J: Automated MAD and MIR structure solution. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (1999) 55:849-861.
26. Terwilliger TC: Sigma2R, a reciprocal-space measure of the quality of macromolecular electron-density maps. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (1999) 55:1174-1178.
27. Terwilliger TC, Berendzen J: Evaluation of macromolecular electron-density map quality using the correlation of local r.m.s. density. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (1999) 55:1872-1877.
28. Weeks CM, Miller R: Optimizing Shake-and-Bake for proteins. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (1999) 55:492-500.
29. Hauptman H: Phasing methods for protein crystallography. Curr Opin Struct Biol (1997) 7:672-680.
30. Wang BC: Resolution of phase ambiguity in macromolecular crystallography. Methods Enzymo/(1985) 115:90-112.
31. Terwilliger TC: Reciprocal-space solvent flattening. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (1 999) 55:1863-1871.
32. Kleywegt GJ: Experimental assessment of differences between related protein crystal structures. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr(1999) 55:1878-1884.
33. Vellieux FM, Read RJ: Noncrystallographic symmetry averaging in phase refinement and extension. Methods £hzymo/(1997) 277:18-53. An in-depth review of the use of non-crystallographic symmetry in crystallography.
34. Gréer J: Automated interpretation of electron density maps of proteins: Derivation of atomic coordinates for the main chain. J Mol Biol (1976) 100:427-458.
35. Diller DJ, Redinbo MR, Pohl E, Hol WG: A database method for automated map interpretation in protein crystallography. Proteins (1999) 36:526-541.
36. Perrakis A, Morris R, Lamzin VS: Automated protein model building combined with iterative structure refinement. Nature Struct Biol (1999) 6:458-463. Describes the algorithm used by an extremely useful autobuilding program in protein crystallography.
37. Van Asselt EJ, Perrakis A, Kalk KH, Lamzin VS, Dijkstra BW: Accelerated X-ray structure elucidation of a 36 kDa muramidase/transglycosylase using wARP. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (1998) 54:58-73.
38. Kleywegt GJ, Jones TA: Model building and refinement practice. Methods Enzymol (1997) 277:208-230. A review of the building of the initial atomic model and its subsequent refinement.
39. Jones TA, Kjelgaard M: Electron-density map Interpretation. Metf70CfeEnzymo/(1997) 1997:173-208. An excellent review of the map interpretation process.
40. Brunger AT, Adams PD, Rice LM: Recent developments for the efficient crystallographic refinement of macromolecular structures. Curr Opin Struct Biol (1998) 8:606-611. An excellent review of current refinement protocols and advancements.
41. Brunger AT, Adams PD, Rice LM: Annealing in crystallography: A powerful optimization tool. Prog Biophys Wo/β/o/(1999) 72:135-155.
42. Pannu NS, Murshudov GN, Dodson EJ, Read RJ: Incorporation of prior phase information strengthens maximum likelihood structure refinement Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr VS98) 54:1285-1294. Describes how new maximum likelihood crystallographic target functions incorporate experimental phase information to improve structure refinements.
43. Luthy R, Bowie JU, Eisenberg D: Assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. Nature (1992) 356:83-85. A protein model validation method, which relies on protein-folding rules.
44. Wilson KS, Butterworth S, Dauter Z, Lamzin VS, Walsh M, Wodak S, Pontius J, Richelle J, Vaguine A, Sander C, Hooft RW, Vriend G, Thomton JM, Laskowski RA, MacArthur MW, Dodson EJ, Murshudov G, Oldfield TJ, Kaptein R, Rullmann JA: 3-D validation network: Who checks the checkers? Four validation tools applied to eight atomic resolution structures. J Mol Biol (1998) 276:417-436. An in-depth evaluation of several validation tools.
45. van den Akker F, Hol WG: Difference density quality (DDQ): A method to assess the global and local correctness of macromolecular crystal structures. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (1999) 55:206-218. A structure validation method that validates a structure's correctness based on responses to perturbations within various types of electron-density maps.
46. Kleywegt GJ: Validation of protein crystal structures. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr (2000) 56:249-265. An excellent review of protein structure validation methods.
47. Word JM, Lovell SC, LaBean TH, Taylor HC, Zalis ME, Presley BK, Richardson JS, Richardson DC: Visualizing and quantifying molecular goodness-of-fit: Small-probe contact dots with explicit hydrogen atoms. J Mol Biol (1999)285:1711-1733. An interesting paper examining the slight mispositioning caused by not representing the hydrogen atoms during refinement.
48. Word JM, Lovell SC, Richardson JS, Richardson DC: Asparagine and glutamine: Using hydrogen atom contacts in the choice of side chain amide orientation. J Mol Biol (1999) 285:1735-1747.
49. Tsitsanou KE, Oikonomakos NG, Zographos SE, Skamnaki VT, Gregoriou M, Watson KA, Johnson LN, Fleet GW: Effects of commonly used cryoprotectants on glycogen phosphorylase activity and structure. Protein Sci (1999) 8:741-749. This paper examines the insidious effects of additives in a crystallization experiment.
50. Mande SC, Sobhia ME: Sructural characterization of protein-denaturant interactions: Crystal structures of hen egg-white lysozyme in complex with DMSO and guanidinium chloride. Protein Eng(2QQQ) 13:133-141. An examination of the structural effects of a common additive to crystallization buffers, ie, DMSO.
51. Bibler-Muckelbauer JK, Kremer MJ, Rossmann MG, Diana GD, Dutko FJ, Pevear DC, McKinlay MA: Human rhinovirus 14 complexed with fragments of active antiviral compounds. Virology (1994) 202:360-369. Another example of DMSO binding to a protein.
52. Debnath AK, Radigan L, Jiang S: Structure-based identification of small molecule antiviral compounds targeted to the gp41 core structure of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Med Chem (1999) 42:3203-3209.
53. Ewing TJ, Kuntz ID: Critical evaluation of search algorithms for automated molecular docking and database screening. JComput C/7em(1997) 18:1175-1189. A recent advance on the DOCK program from UCSF, which remains the most widely-used and widely-tested docking-screening program.
54. Schnecke V, Swanson CA, Getzoff ED, Tainer JA, Kühn LA: Screening a peptidyl database for potential ligands to proteins with side-chain flexibility. Proteins (1998) 33:74-87.
55. Kramer B, Rarey M, Lengauer T: Evaluation of the FLEXX incremental construction algorithm for protein-ligand docking. Proteins (1999) 37:228-241. A test of the ability of FlexX to reproduce a large number of protein-ligand complexes from the PDB. FlexX is a popular and widely available docking program.
56. Lorber DM, Shoichet BK: Flexible ligand docking using conformational ensembles. Protein Sci (1998) 7:938-950.
57. Strynadka MC, Eisenstein M, Katchalski-Katzir E, Shoichet BK, Kuntz ID, Abagyan R, Totrov M, Janin J, Cherfils J, Zimmerman F, Oison A, Duncan B, Rao M, Jackson R, Stemberg M, James MN: Molecular docking programs successfully predict the binding of a β-lactamase inhibitory protein to TEM-1 β-lactamase. Nature Struct β/o/(1996) 3:233-239. The crystallography group of Michael James challenged six docking groups to predict the structure of a protein-protein complex before its structure had been determined. All six groups successfully predicted the overall structure of the complex, although some key polar interactions were missed.
58. Hart TN, Ness SR, Read RJ: Critical evaluation of the Research docking program for the CASP2 challenge. Proteins (1997) (Suppl 1):205-209. A report on the success of the Research docking program in a recent CASP test of computational methods. This program was one of the more successful of the programs tested. Broadly, the docking methods did well, though they were by no means able to predict all complexes.
59. Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Huey R, Oison AJ: Distributed automated docking of flexible ligands to proteins: Parallel applications of AutoDock 2.4. J Comput Aided Mol Des (1996)10:293-304. An update of the AutoDock program, which is widely used to predict the structures of single complexes.
60. Shoichet BK, Leach AR, Kuntz ID: Ligand solvation in molecular docking. Proteins (1999) 34:4-16. Explicit ligand desolvation penalties are introduced into a derivative of DOCK. To get sensible rankings in molecular docking, it is critical to include desolvation energies in one form or another. This remains an area of active investigation.
61. Majeux N, Scarsi M, Apostolakis J, Ehrhardt C, Caflisch A: Exhaustive docking of molecular fragments with electrostatic solvation. Proteins (1999) 37:88-105.
62. Zou X, Sun Y, Kuntz ID: Inclusion of solvation in ligand binding free energy calculations using the generalizedborn model. JAm Chem Soc(1999) 121:8033-8043.
63. Muegge I, Martin YC: A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: A simplified potential approach. J Med Chem (1999) 42:791-804.
64. Charifson PS, Corkery JJ, Murcko MA, Walters WP: Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. J Med Chem (1999) 42:5100-5109. This paper presents a side-by-side comparison of many popular docking scoring methods against experimental data collected by the Vertex group.
65. Knegtel RM, Wagener M: Efficacy and selectivity in flexible database docking. Proteins (1999) 37:334-345.
66. Ajay A, Walters WP, Murcko MA: Can we learn to distinguish between 'drug-like' and 'non-drug-like1 molecules? J Med Chem (1998) 41:3314-3324. One of several recent papers on distinguishing 'drug-like' from 'non-drug-like' molecules in molecular databases. The Vertex group has argued strongly that molecular databases should be purged of intrinsically uninteresting and non-specific inhibitors.
67. Ring CS, Sun E, McKerrow JH, Lee GK, Rosenthal PJ, Kuntz ID, Cohen FE: Structure-based inhibitor design by using protein models for the development of antiparasitic agents. Proc NatlAcadSci USA (1993) 90:3583-3587.
68. Murray CW, Baxter CA, Frenkel AD: The sensitivity of the results of molecular docking to induced fit effects: Application to thrombin, thermolysin and neuraminidase. J Comput Aided Mol Des (1999) 13:547-562.
69. Shoichet BK, Stroud RM, Santi DV, Kuntz ID, Perry KM: Structure-based discovery of inhibitors of thymidylate synthase. Science (1993) 259:1445-1450.
70. Kick EK, Roe DC, Skillman AG, Liu G, Ewing TJ, Sun Y, Kuntz ID, Ellman JA: Structure-based design and combinatorial chemistry yield low nanomolar inhibitors of cathepsin D. Chem Biol (1997) 4:297-307. A compelling study showing how structure-based information can complement combinatorial chemistry by constraining the chemical space that needs to be explored by the library.
71. Tondi D, Slomczynska U, Costi MP, Watterson DM, Ghelli S, Shoichet BK: Structure-based discovery and in-parallel elaboration of novel inhibitors of thymidylate synthase. Chem Biol (1999) 6:319-331. Synthetic elaboration was a criterion in selecting leads to pursue from a docking screen against thymidylate synthase. This allowed for in parallel optimization of the lead compound discovered. By insisting on competitive inhibitors, non-substrate-like inhibitors were found that bound in the substrate site.
72. Stout TJ, Stroud RM: The complex of the anti-cancer therapeutic, BW1843U89, with thymidylate synthase at 2.0 A resolution: Implications for a new mode of inhibition. Structure (1996) 4:67-77.
73. DesJarlais RL, Scibel GL, Kuntz ID, Furth PS, Alvarez JC, Ortiz de Montellano PR, DeCamp DL, Babe LM, Craik CS: Structure-based design of nonpeptide inhibitors specific for the human immunodeficiency virus 1 protease. P roc Natl Acad Sci USA (1990) 87:6644-6648.
74. Somoza JR, Skillman AG Jr, Munagala NR, Oshiro CM, Knegtel RM, Mpoke S, Fletterick RJ, Kuntz ID, Wang CC: Rational design of novel antimicrobials: Blocking purine salvage in a parasitic protozoan. Biochemistry (1998) 37:5344-5348.
75. Toney JH, Fitzgerald PM, Grover-Sharma N, Oison SH, May WJ, Sundelof JG, Vanderwall DE, Cleary KA, Grant SK, Wu JK, Kozarich JW, Pompliano DL, Hammond GG: Antibiotic sensitization using biphenyl tetrazoles as potent inhibitors of Bacteroides fragilis metallo-β-lactamase. Chem Biol (1998)5:185-196.
76. Bodian DL, Yamasaki RB, Buswell RL, Steams JF, White JM, Kuntz ID: Inhibition of the fusion-Inducing conformational change of influenza hemagglutinin by benzoquinones and hydroquinones. Biochemistry (1993) 32:2967-2978.
77. Hopkins SC, Vale RD, Kuntz ID: Inhibitors of kinesin activity from structure-based computer screening. Biochemistry (2000)39:2805-2814.
78. Hotfman LR, Kuntz ID, White JM: Structure-based identification of an inducer of the low-pH conformational change in the influenza virus hemagglutinin: Irreversible inhibition of infectivity. J V/ro/(1997) 71:8808-8820.
79. Sarmiento M, Wu L, Keng YF, Song L, Luo Z, Huang 2, Wu GZ, Yuan AK, Zhang ZY: Structure-based discovery of small molecule inhibitors targeted to protein tyrosine phosphatase 1 B. J Med Chem (2000) 43:146-155.
80. Perola E, Xu K, Kollmeyer TM, Kaufmann SH, Prendergast FG, Pang YP: Successful virtual screening of a chemical database for farnesyltransferase inhibitor leads. J Med Chem (2000) 43:401-408.
81. Gschwend DA, Sirawarapom W, Santi DV, Kuntz ID: Specificity in structure-based drug design: Identification of a novel, selective inhibitor of Pneumocystis carinii dihydrofolate reductase. Proteins CQ97) 29:59-67.
82. Schapira M, Raaka BM, Samuels HH, Abagyan R: Rational discovery of novel nuclear hormone receptor antagonists. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2000) 97:1008-1013.