Ligand-supported homology modelling of protein binding-sites using knowledge-based potentials

Journal of Molecular Biology

Volumn 334, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 327-345

  Evers, Andreas ^a   Gohlke, Holger ^a,b   Klebe, Gerhard ^a  

^a PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

^b SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Docking; DrugScore; Homology modelling; Knowledge based potentials; Protein ligand interaction

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; ATOM; BASE PAIRING; BINDING SITE; CRYSTALLOGRAPHY; ENERGY YIELD; FORCE; GEOMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN DATABASE; PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; PROTEIN TARGETING; SCORING SYSTEM; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY;

EID: 0242301182     PISSN: 00222836     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2003.09.032     Document Type: Article

References (108)

1. Marcotte E.M., Pellegrini M., Ng H.L., Rice D.W., Yeates T.O., Eisenberg D. Detecting protein function and protein-protein interactions from genome sequences. Science. 285:1999;751-753.
2. Broder S., Venter J.C. Sequencing the entire genomes of free-living organisms: the foundation of pharmacology in the new millennium. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 40:2000;97-132.
3. Lander E.S., Linton L.M., Birren B., Nusbaum C., Zody M.C., Baldwin J., et al. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature. 409:2001;860-921.
4. Rubin G.M., Yandell M.D., Wortman J.R., Gabor Miklos G.L., Nelson C.R., Hariharan I.K., et al. Comparative genomics of the eukaryotes. Science. 287:2000;2204-2215.
5. Sanchez R., Pieper U., Melo F., Eswar N., Marti-Renom M.A., Madhusudhan M.S., et al. Protein structure modeling for structural genomics. Nature Struct. Biol. 7:2000;986-990.
6. Brenner S.E. Target selection for structural genomics. Nature Struct. Biol. 7:2000;967-969.
7. Brenner S.E., Levitt M. Expectations from structural genomics. Protein Sci. 9:2000;197-200.
8. Holm L., Sander C. Mapping the protein universe. Science. 273:1996;595-603.
9. Marti-Renom M.A., Stuart A.C., Fiser A., Sanchez R., Melo F., Sali A. Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 29:2000;291-325.
10. Tramontano A., Leplae R., Morea V. Analysis and assessment of comparative modeling predictions in CASP4. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet. Suppl. 5:2001;22-38.
11. Moult J., Hubbard T., Fidelis K., Pedersen J.T. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP): round III. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet. Suppl. 3:1999;2-6.
12. Venclovas C., Zemla A., Fidelis K., Moult J. Comparison of performance in successive CASP experiments. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet. Suppl. 5:2001;163-170.
13. Bates P.A., Kelley L.A., MacCallum R.M., Sternberg M.J. Enhancement of protein modeling by human intervention in applying the automatic programs 3D-JIGSAW and 3D-PSSM. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet. Suppl. 5:2001;39-46.
14. Thornton J.M., Orengo C.A., Todd A.E., Pearl F.M. Protein folds, functions and evolution. J. Mol. Biol. 293:1999;333-342.
15. Thornton J.M., Todd A.E., Milburn D., Borkakoti N., Orengo C.A. From structure to function: approaches and limitations. Nature Struct. Biol. 7:2000;991-994.
16. Skolnick J., Fetrow J.S., Kolinski A. Structural genomics and its importance for gene function analysis. Nature Biotechnol. 18:2000;283-287.
17. Andrade M.A., Brown N.P., Leroy C., Hoersch S., de Daruvar A., Reich C., et al. Automated genome sequence analysis and annotation. Bioinformatics. 15:1999;391-412.
18. Russell R.B., Eggleston D.S. New roles for structure in biology and drug discovery. Nature Struct. Biol. 7:2000;928-930.
19. Klabunde T., Hessler G. Drug design strategies for targeting G-protein-coupled receptors. ChemBiochem. 3:2002;928-944.
20. Bourdon H., Trumpp-Kallmeyer S., Schreuder H., Hoflack J., Hibert M., Wermuth C.G. Modelling of the binding site of the human m1 muscarinic receptor: experimental validation and refinement. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 11:1997;317-332.
21. Lozano J.J., Lopez-de-Brinas E., Centeno N.B., Guigo R., Sanz F. Three-dimensional modelling of human cytochrome P450 1A2 and its interaction with caffeine and MeIQ. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 11:1997;395-408.
22. Garcia-Nieto R., Perez C., Gago F. Automated docking and molecular dynamics simulations of nimesulide in the cyclooxygenase active site of human prostaglandin-endoperoxide synthase-2 (COX-2). J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 14:2000;147-160.
23. Zhang X.P., Sjoling S., Tanudji M., Somogyi L., Andreu D., Eriksson L.E., et al. Mutagenesis and computer modelling approach to study determinants for recognition of signal peptides by the mitochondrial processing peptidase. Plant J. 27:2001;427-438.
24. Marhefka C.A., Moore B.M. 2nd, Bishop T.C., Kirkovsky L., Mukherjee A., Dalton J.T., Miller D.D. Homology modeling using multiple molecular dynamics simulations and docking studies of the human androgen receptor ligand binding domain bound to testosterone and nonsteroidal ligands. J. Med. Chem. 44:2001;1729-1740.
25. Le Novere N., Grutter T., Changeux J.P. Models of the extracellular domain of the nicotinic receptors and of agonist- and Ca2+-binding sites. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 99:2002;3210-3215.
26. Gieldon A., Kazmierkiewicz R., Slusarz R., Ciarkowski J. Molecular modeling of interactions of the non-peptide antagonist YM087 with the human vasopressin V1a, V2 receptors and with oxytocin receptors. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 15:2001;1085-1104.
27. Escherich A., Lutz J., Escrieut C., Fourmy D., van Neuren A.S., Muller G., et al. Peptide/benzodiazepine hybrids as ligands of CCK(A) and CCK(B) receptors. Biopolymers. 56:2000;55-76.
28. Bathelt C., Schmid R.D., Pleiss J. Regioselectivity of CYP2B6: homology modeling, molecular dynamics simulation, docking. J. Mol. Model. (Online). 8:2002;327-335.
29. Lopez-Rodriguez M.L., Murcia M., Benhamu B., Olivella M., Campillo M., Pardo L. Computational model of the complex between GR113808 and the 5-HT4 receptor guided by site-directed mutagenesis and the crystal structure of rhodopsin. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 15:2001;1025-1033.
30. Bissantz C., Bernard P., Hibert M., Rognan D. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. II. Are homology models of G-protein coupled receptors suitable targets? Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet. 50:2003;5-25.
31. Vaidehi N., Floriano W.B., Trabanino R., Hall S.E., Freddolino P., Choi E.J., et al. Prediction of structure and function of G protein-coupled receptors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 99:2002;12622-12627.
32. Gouldson P.R., Snell C.R., Reynolds C.A. A new approach to docking in the beta 2-adrenergic receptor that exploits the domain structure of G-protein-coupled receptors. J. Med. Chem. 40:1997;3871-3886.
33. Moro S., Li A.H., Jacobson K.A. Molecular modeling studies of human A3 adenosine antagonists: structural homology and receptor docking. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38:1998;1239-1248.
34. Moro S., Guo D., Camaioni E., Boyer J.L., Harden T.K., Jacobson K.A. Human P2Y1 receptor: molecular modeling and site-directed mutagenesis as tools to identify agonist and antagonist recognition sites. J. Med. Chem. 41:1998;1456-1466.
35. Tiraboschi G., Jullian N., Thery V., Antonczak S., Fournie-Zaluski M.C., Roques B.P. A three-dimensional construction of the active site (region 507-749) of human neutral endopeptidase (EC.3.4.24.11). Protein Eng. 12:1999;141-149.
36. Rong S.B., Zhang J., Neale J.H., Wroblewski J.T., Wang S., Kozikowski A.P. Molecular modeling of the interactions of glutamate carboxypeptidase II with its potent NAAG-based inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 45:2002;4140-4152.
37. Kiyama R., Tamura Y., Watanabe F., Tsuzuki H., Ohtani M., Yodo M. Homology modeling of gelatinase catalytic domains and docking simulations of novel sulfonamide inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 42:1999;1723-1738.
38. Vedani A., Zbinden P., Snyder J.P. Pseudo-receptor modeling: a new concept for the three-dimensional construction of receptor binding sites. J. Recept. Res. 13:1993;163-177.
39. Jansen J.M., Koehler K.F., Hedberg M.H., Johansson A.M., Hacksell U., Nordvall G., Snyder J.P. Molecular design using the minireceptor concept. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 37:1997;812-818.
40. Johnson M.A., Hoog C., Pinto B.M. A novel modeling protocol for protein receptors guided by bound-ligand conformation. Biochemistry. 42:2003;1842-1853.
41. Jalaie M., Erickson J.A. Homology model directed alignment selection for comparative molecular field analysis: application to photosystem II inhibitors. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 14:2000;181-197.
42. Schafferhans A., Klebe G. Docking ligands onto binding site representations derived from proteins built by homology modelling. J. Mol. Biol. 307:2001;407-427.
43. Trosset J.Y., Scheraga H.A. Reaching the global minimum in docking simulations: a Monte Carlo energy minimization approach using Bezier splines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 95:1998;8011-8015.
44. Vakser I.A. Long-distance potentials: an approach to the multiple-minima problem in ligand-receptor interaction. Protein Eng. 9:1996;37-41.
45. chapt. 7 Sotriffer C.A., Klebe G., Stahl M., Bohm H.J. Docking and scoring functions/virtual screening. Burgers Handbook of Medicinal Chemistry. vol. 1:2003;Wiley, New York.
46. Halperin I., Ma B., Wolfson H., Nussinov R. Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet. 47:2002;409-443.
47. Ma B., Kumar S., Tsai C.J., Nussinov R. Folding funnels and binding mechanisms. Protein Eng. 12:1999;713-720.
48. Bohm H.J. Prediction of binding constants of protein ligands: a fast method for the prioritization of hits obtained from de novo design or 3D database search programs. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 12:1998;309-323.
49. Bohm H.J. Towards the automatic design of synthetically accessible protein ligands: peptides, amides and peptidomimetics. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 10:1996;265-272.
50. Bohm H.J. On the use of LUDI to search the Fine Chemicals Directory for ligands of proteins of known three-dimensional structure. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 8:1994;623-632.
51. Bohm H.J. The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 8:1994;243-256.
52. Bohm H.J. A novel computational tool for automated structure-based drug design. J. Mol. Recogn. 6:1993;131-137.
53. Bohm H.J. LUDI: rule-based automatic design of new substituents for enzyme inhibitor leads. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 6:1992;593-606.
54. Bohm H.J. The computer program LUDI: a new method for the de novo design of enzyme inhibitors. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 6:1992;61-78.
55. Kearsley S.K., Smith G.M. An alternative method for the alignment of molecular structures maximizing electrostatic overlap. Tetrahedron Comput. Methodol. 3:1990;615-633.
56. Klebe G., Mietzner T., Weber F. Different approaches toward an automatic structural alignment of drug molecules: applications to sterol mimics, thrombin and thermolysin inhibitors. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 8:1994;751-778.
57. Klebe G., Mietzner T., Weber F. Methodological developments and strategies for a fast flexible superposition of drug-size molecules. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 13:1999;35-49.
58. Knegtel R.M., Kuntz I.D., Oshiro C.M. Molecular docking to ensembles of protein structures. J. Mol. Biol. 266:1997;424-440.
59. Osterberg F., Morris G.M., Sanner M.F., Olson A.J., Goodsell D.S. Automated docking to multiple target structures: incorporation of protein mobility and structural water heterogeneity in AutoDock. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet. 46:2002;34-40.
60. Claussen H., Buning C., Rarey M., Lengauer T. FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations. J. Mol. Biol. 308:2001;377-395.
61. Vajda S., Sippl M., Novotny J. Empirical potentials and functions for protein folding and binding. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 7:1997;222-228.
62. Jernigan R.L., Bahar I. Structure-derived potentials and protein simulations. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 6:1996;195-209.
63. Torda A.E. Perspectives in protein-fold recognition. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 7:1997;200-205.
64. Sippl M.J. Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 5:1995;229-235.
65. Gohlke H., Hendlich M., Klebe G. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 295:2000;337-356.
66. Mitchell J.B., Laskowski R.A., Alex A., Thornton J.M. BLEEP - potential of mean force describing protein-ligand interactions. I. Generating potential. J. Comput. Chem. 20:1999;1165-1176.
67. Mitchell J.B., Laskowski R.A., Alex A., Forster M.J., Thornton J.M. BLEEP - potential of mean force describing protein-ligand interactions. II. Calculation of binding energies and comparison with experimental data. J. Comput. Chem. 20:1999;1177-1185.
68. Muegge I., Martin Y.C. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. J. Med. Chem. 42:1999;791-804.
69. DeWitte R.S., Shakhnovich E.I. Smog: de novo design method based on simple, fast, accurate free energy estimates.1. Methodology supporting evidence. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 118:1996;11733-11744.
70. Gohlke H., Hendlich M., Klebe G. Predicting binding modes, binding affinities and "hot spots" for protein-ligand complexes using a knowledge-based scoring function. Persp. Drug Discov. Des. 20:2000;115-144.
71. Sotriffer C.A., Gohlke H., Klebe G. Docking into knowledge-based potential fields: a comparative evaluation of DrugScore. J. Med. Chem. 45:2002;1967-1970.
72. Gohlke H., Klebe G. DrugScore meets CoMFA: adaptation of fields for molecular comparison (AFMoC) or how to tailor knowledge-based pair-potentials to a particular protein. J. Med. Chem. 45:2002;4153-4170.
73. Sali A., Blundell T.L. Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. J. Mol. Biol. 234:1993;779-815.
74. Fiser A., Do R.K., Sali A. Modeling of loops in protein structures. Protein Sci. 9:2000;1753-1773.
75. Brooks B.R. A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J. Comput. Chem. 4:1983;187-217.
76. Bowie J.U., Luthy R., Eisenberg D. A method to identify protein sequences that fold into a known three-dimensional structure. Science. 253:1991;164-170.
77. Colovos C., Yeates T.O. Verification of protein structures: patterns of nonbonded atomic interactions. Protein Sci. 2:1993;1511-1519.
78. Dominy B.N., Brooks C.L. Identifying native-like protein structures using physics-based potentials. J. Comput. Chem. 23:2002;147-160.
79. Eisenberg D., Bowie J.U., Luthy R., Choe S. Three-dimensional profiles for analysing protein sequence-structure relationships. Faraday Discuss. 93:1992;25-34.
80. Laskowski R.A., Moss D.S., Thornton J.M. Main-chain bond lengths and bond angles in protein structures. J. Mol. Biol. 231:1993;1049-1067.
81. Luthy R., Bowie J.U., Eisenberg D. Assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. Nature. 356:1992;83-85.
82. Melo F., Feytmans E. Assessing protein structures with a non-local atomic interaction energy. J. Mol. Biol. 277:1998;1141-1152.
83. Simons K.T., Ruczinski I., Kooperberg C., Fox B.A., Bystroff C., Baker D. Improved recognition of native-like protein structures using a combination of sequence-dependent and sequence-independent features of proteins. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet. 34:1999;82-95.
84. Wang Y., Zhang H., Scott R.A. A new computational model for protein folding based on atomic solvation. Protein Sci. 4:1995;1402-1411.
85. Wang Y., Zhang H., Li W., Scott R.A. Discriminating compact nonnative structures from the native structure of globular proteins. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 92:1995;709-713.
86. Gerber P.R. Charge distribution from a simple molecular orbital type calculation and non-bonding interaction terms in the force field MAB. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 12:1998;37-51.
87. Gerber P.R., Muller K. MAB, a generally applicable molecular force field for structure modelling in medicinal chemistry. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 9:1995;251-268.
88. Zar J.H. Biostatistical Analysis. 4th edit. 1999;Prentice Hall Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
89. Maignan S., Guilloteau J.P., Pouzieux S., Choi-Sledeski Y.M., Becker M.R., Klein S.I., et al. Crystal structures of human factor Xa complexed with potent inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 43:2000;3226-3232.
90. Sali A., Blundell T.L. Definition of general topological equivalence in protein structures. A procedure involving comparison of properties and relationships through simulated annealing and dynamic programming. J. Mol. Biol. 212:1990;403-428.
91. Nar H., Bauer M., Schmid A., Stassen J.M., Wienen W., Priepke H.W., et al. Structural basis for inhibition promiscuity of dual specific thrombin and factor Xa blood coagulation inhibitors. Structure (Camb.). 9:2001;29-37.
92. Guertin K.R., Gardner C.J., Klein S.I., Zulli A.L., Czekaj M., Gong Y., et al. Optimization of the beta-aminoester class of factor Xa inhibitors. Part 2: identification of FXV673 as a potent and selective inhibitor with excellent in vivo anticoagulant activity. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Letters. 12:2002;1671-1674.
93. Kamata K., Kawamoto H., Honma T., Iwama T., Kim S.H. Structural basis for chemical inhibition of human blood coagulation factor Xa. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 95:1998;6630-6635.
94. Adler M., Davey D.D., Phillips G.B., Kim S.H., Jancarik J., Rumennik G., et al. Preparation, characterization, and the crystal structure of the inhibitor ZK-807834 (CI-1031) complexed with factor Xa. Biochemistry. 39:2000;12534-12542.
95. Brandstetter H., Kuhne A., Bode W., Huber R., von der Saal W., Wirthensohn K., Engh R.A. X-ray structure of active site-inhibited clotting factor Xa. Implications for drug design and substrate recognition. J. Biol. Chem. 271:1996;29988-29992.
96. Howard E., Sanishvili R., Cachau R.E., Mitschler A., Chevrier B., Barth P., et al. Human aldose reductase - inhibitor complex at 0.66 A: experimentally observed protonation states and atomic interactions have implications for the inhibition mechanism. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet. 66:2003;. In the press.
97. Schonbrun J., Wedemeyer W.J., Baker D. Protein structure prediction in 2002. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 12:2002;348-354.
98. Moult J., Fidelis K., Zemla A., Hubbard T. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP): round IV. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Genet. Suppl. 5:2001;2-7.
99. Mitsutake A., Sugita Y., Okamoto Y. Generalized-ensemble algorithms for molecular simulations of biopolymers. Biopolymers. 60:2001;96-123.
100. Kim K.H. 3D QSAR. Richardson C.C. Drug Design: Recent Advances. Drug Design: Recent Advances. vol. 3:1998;233-255 Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
101. Levitt M., Gerstein M., Huang E., Subbiah S., Tsai J. Protein folding: the endgame. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 66:1997;549-579.
102. Petrella R.J., Lazaridis T., Karplus M. Protein sidechain conformer prediction: a test of the energy function. Fold. Des. 3:1998;353-377.
103. Xiang Z., Honig B. Extending the accuracy limits of prediction for side-chain conformations. J. Mol. Biol. 311:2001;421-430.
104. Stubbs M.T., Reyda S., Dullweber F., Moller M., Klebe G., Dorsch D., et al. pH-dependent binding modes observed in trypsin crystals: lessons for structure-based drug design. Chembiochem. 3:2002;246-249.
105. Freire E. Statistical thermodynamic linkage between conformational and binding equilibria. Advan. Protein Chem. 51:1998;255-279.
106. Ma B., Shatsky M., Wolfson H.J., Nussinov R. Multiple diverse ligands binding at a single protein site: a matter of pre-existing populations. Protein Sci. 11:2002;184-197.
107. Tsai C.-J., Ma B., Nussinov R. Folding and binding cascades: shifts in energy landscapes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 96:1999;9970-9992.
108. Hodgkin E.E., Richards W.G. Molecular similarity based on electrostatic potential and electric field. Int. J. Quantum Chem.: Quant. Biol. Symp. 14:1987;105-110.