Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools

Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 962-976

  Cummings, Maxwell D ^a   DesJarlais, Renee L ^a   Gibbs, Alan C ^b   Mohan, Venkatraman ^b   Jaeger, Edward P ^a  

^a Eagleview Corporate Center   (United States)

^b Cedarbrook Corporate Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ONCOPROTEIN; PROTEIN MDM2; PROTEIN TYROSINE PHOSPHATASE 1B; PROTEINASE; THROMBIN; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; UROKINASE;

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; DATA BASE; DRUG PROTEIN BINDING; DRUG SCREENING; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; PERFORMANCE; PROTEIN TARGETING;

BINDING SITES; HIV PROTEASE; HUMANS; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; NUCLEAR PROTEINS; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN-TYROSINE-PHOSPHATASE; PROTEINS; PROTO-ONCOGENE PROTEINS; PROTO-ONCOGENE PROTEINS C-MDM2; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; SOFTWARE; THROMBIN; URINARY PLASMINOGEN ACTIVATOR;

EID: 13944263886     PISSN: 00222623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jm049798d     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Wodak, S. J.; Janin, J. Computer analysis of protein-protein interaction. J. Mol. Biol. 1978, 124, 323-342.
2. Kuntz, I. D.; Blaney, J. M.; Oatley, S. J.; Langridge, R.; Ferrin, T. E. A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 1982, 161, 269-288.
3. DesJarlais, R. L.; Sheridan, R. P.; Dixon, J. S.; Kuntz, I. D.; Venkataraghavan, R. Docking flexible ligands to macromolecular receptors by molecular shape. J. Med. Chem. 1986, 29, 2149-2153.
4. DesJarlais, R. L.; Sheridan, R. P.; Seibel, G. L.; Dixon, J. S.; Kuntz, I. D. et al. Using shape complementarity as an initial screen in designing ligands for a receptor binding site of known three-dimensional structure. J. Med. Chem. 1988, 31, 722-729.
5. Ewing, T. J.; Makino, S.; Skillman, A. G.; Kuntz, I. D. DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2001, 15, 411-428.
6. Good, A. C.; Ewing, T. J.; Gschwend, D. A.; Kuntz, I. D. New molecular shape descriptors: Application in database screening. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1995, 9, 1-12.
7. Grootenhuis, P. D.; Kollman, P. A.; Seibel, G. L.; DesJarlais, R. L.; Kuntz, I. D. Computerized selection of potential DNA binding compounds. Anticancer Drug Des. 1990, 5, 237-242.
8. Gschwend, D. A.; Kuntz, I. D. Orientational sampling and rigid-body minimization in molecular docking revisited: On-the-fly optimization and degeneracy removal. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1996, 10, 123-132.
9. Knegtel, R. M.; Kuntz, I. D.; Oshiro, C. M. Molecular docking to ensembles of protein structures. J. Mol. Biol. 1997, 266, 424-440.
10. Lamb, M. L.; Burdick, K. W.; Toba, S.; Young, M. M.; Skillman, A. G. et al. Design, docking, and evaluation of multiple libraries against multiple targets. Proteins 2001, 42, 296-318.
11. Lewis, R. A.; Roe, D. C.; Huang, C.; Ferrin, T. E.; Langridge, R. et al. Automated site-directed drug design using molecular lattices. J. Mol. Graph. 1992, 10, 66-78, 106.
12. Makino, S.; Ewing, T. J.; Kuntz, I. D. DREAM++: Flexible docking program for virtual combinatorial libraries. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1999, 13, 513-532.
13. Meng, E. C.; Gschwend, D. A.; Blaney, J. M.; Kuntz, I. D. Orientational sampling and rigid-body minimization in molecular docking. Proteins 1993, 17, 266-278.
14. Shoichet, B. K.; Kuntz, I. D. Matching chemistry and shape in molecular docking. Protein Eng. 1993, 6, 723-732.
15. Shoichet, B. K.; Leach, A. R.; Kuntz, I. D. Ligand solvation in molecular docking. Proteins 1999, 34, 4-16.
16. Shoichet, B. K.; Stroud, R. M.; Santi, D. V.; Kuntz, I. D.; Perry, K. M. Structure-based discovery of inhibitors of thymidylate synthase. Science 1993, 259, 1445-1450.
17. Strynadka, N. C.; Eisenstein, M.; Katchalski-Katzir, E.; Shoichet, B. K.; Kuntz, I. D. et al. Molecular docking programs successfully predict the binding of β-lactamase inhibitory protein to TEM-1 β-lactamase. Nat. Struct. Biol. 1996, 3, 233-239.
18. Sun, Y.; Ewing, T. J.; Skillman, A. G.; Kuntz, I. D. Combi-DOCK: Structure-based combinatorial docking and library design. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1998, 12, 597-604.
19. Wang, J.; Kollman, P. A.; Kuntz, I. D. Flexible ligand docking: A multistep strategy approach. Proteins 1999, 36, 1-19.
20. Shoichet, B. K.; McGovern, S. L.; Wei, B.; Irwin, J. J. Lead discovery using molecular docking. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2002, 6, 439-446.
21. Muegge, I.; Rarey, M. Small Molecule Docking and Scoring. Reviews in Computational Chemistry; Wiley-VCH: New York, 2001; pp 1-60.
22. Abagyan, R.; Totrov, M. High-throughput docking for lead generation. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2001, 5, 375-382.
23. Macarron, R.; Hertzberg, R. P. Design and Implementation of High Throughput Screening Assays. High Throughput Screening Methods and Protocols; Human Press, Inc.: Totawa, NJ, 2002; pp 1-29.
24. Bissantz, C.; Folkers, G.; Rognan, D. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 4759-4767.
25. Charifson, P. S.; Corkery, J. J.; Murcko, M. A.; Walters, W. P. 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.
26. Gschwend, D. A.; Good, A. C.; Kuntz, I. D. Molecular docking towards drug discovery. J. Mol. Recognit. 1988, 9, 175-186.
27. Stahl, M.; Rarey, M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1035-1042.
28. Schulz-Gasch, T.; Stahl, M. Binding site characteristics in structure-based vistual screening: evaluation of current docking tools. J. Mol. Model. 2003, 9, 47-57.
29. Kellenberger, E.; Rodrigo, J.; Muller, P.; Rognan, D. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins 2004, 57, 225-242.
30. Perola, E.; Walters, W. P.; Charifson, P. S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins 2004, 56, 235-249.
31. Wlodawer, A.; Vondrasek, J. Inhibitors of HIV-1 protease: A major success of structure-assisted drug design. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 1998, 27, 249-284.
32. Zhang, Z. Protein tyrosine phosphatases: prospects for therapeutics. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2001, 5, 416-423.
33. Fenton, J.; Ofosu, F.; Moon, D.; Maraganore, J. Thrombin structure and function: Why thrombin is the primary target for anti-thrombotics. Blood Coagulation Fibrinolysis 1991, 2, 69-75.
34. Berman, H. M.; Westbrook, J.; Feng, Z.; Gilliland, G.; Bhat, T. N. et al. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000, 28, 235-242.
35. Tkachuk, V.; Stepanova, V.; Little, P. J.; Bobik, A. Regulation and role of urokinase plasminogen activator in vascular remodelling. Clin. Exp. Pharmacol. Physiol. 1996, 23, 759-765.
36. Andreasen, P. A.; Kjoller, L.; Christensen, L.; Duffy, M. J. The urokinase-type plasminogen activator system in cancer metastasis: A review. Int. J. Cancer 1997, 72, 1-22.
37. Nienaber, V. L.; Davidson, D.; Edalji, R.; Giranda, V. L.; Klinghofer, V. et al. Structure-directed discovery of potent nonpeptidic inhibitors of human urokinase that access a novel binding subsite. Structure Fold. Des. 2000, 8, 553-563.
38. Lam, P. Y.; Jadhav, P. K.; Eyermann, C. J.; Hodge, C. N.; Ru, Y. et al. Rational design of potent, bioavailable, nonpeptide cyclic ureas as HIV protease inhibitors. Science 1994, 263, 380-384.
39. Andersen, H. S.; Iversen, L. F.; Jeppesen, C. B.; Branner, S.; Norris, K. et al. 2-(oxalylamino)-benzoic acid is a general, competitive inhibitor of protein-tyrosine phosphatases. J. Biol. Chem. 2000, 275, 7101-7108.
40. Bone, R.; Lu, T.; Illig, C. R.; Soll, R. M.; Spurlino, J. C. Structural analysis of thrombin complexed with potent inhibitors incorporating a phenyl group as a peptide mimetic and aminopyridines as guanidine substitutes. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41, 2068-2075.
41. Verdonk, M. L.; Berdini, V.; Hartshorn, M. J.; Mooij, W. T.; Murray, C. W. et al. Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: avoiding artificial enrichment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 793-806.
42. Vigers, G. P.; Rizzi, J. P. Multiple active site corrections for docking and virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 80-89.
43. Compounds containing atoms other than H, Li, B, C, N, O, F, Na, Mg, S, Cl, K, Ca, Br, and I were excluded. Molecular weight was retricted to the range 200-600. Compounds containing α-halo carbonyls, isocyanates, sulfonylhalides, acid halides, aldehydes, anhydrides, polyethers, 4 or more fused phenyl rings, 2 or more nitro groups, or polyfluorinated compounds were excluded.
44. MDDR, http://www.mdl.com/products/knowledge/drug_data_ report/index.jsp.
45. Lipinski, C. A.; Lombardo, F.; Dominy, B. W.; Feeney, P. J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 1997, 23, 3-25.
46. Pearlman, R. Rapid generation of high quality approximate 3D molecular structures. Chem. Des. Auto. News 1987, 2, 1-6.
47. Sadowski, J.; Rudolph, C.; Gasteiger, J. Automatic generation of 3D atomic coordinates for organic molecules. Tetrahedron Comput. Methodol. 1990, 3, 537-547.
48. Agrafiotis, D. K.; Lobanov, V. S.; Salemme, F. R. Combinatorial informatics in the post-genomics era. Nature Rev. Drug Disc. 2002, 1, 337-346.
49. Hart, T. N.; Read, R. J. A multiple-start Monte Carlo docking method. Proteins 1992, 13, 206-222.
50. Hart, T. N.; Ness, S. R.; Read, R. J. Critical evaluation of the research docking program for the CASP2 challenge. Proteins 1997, 29(S1), 205-209.
51. Paul, N.; Rognan, D. ConsDock: A new program for the consensus analysis of protein-ligand interactions. Proteins 2002, 47, 521-533.
52. Rarey, M.; Kramer, B.; Lengauer, T.; Klebe, G. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J. Mol. Biol. 1998, 261, 470-489.
53. Jones, G.; Willett, P.; Glen, R. C.; Leach, A. R.; Taylor, R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J. Mol. Biol. 1997, 267, 727-748.
54. Connolly, M. L. The molecular surface package. J. Mol. Graph. 1993, 11, 139-141.
55. Halgren, T. A.; Murphy, R. B.; Friesner, R. A.; Beard, H. S.; Frye, L. L. et al. Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 1750-1759.
56. Friesner, R. A.; Banks, J. L.; Murphy, R. B.; Halgren, T. A.; Klicic, J. J. et al. Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 1739-1749.
57. Eldridge, M. D.; Murray, C. W.; Auton, T. R.; Paolini, G. V.; Mee, R. P. Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1997, 11, 425-445.
58. Wang, R.; Wang, S. How does consensus scoring work for virtual library screening? An idealized computer experiment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1422-1426.
59. Cummings, M. D.; Hart, T. N.; Read, R. J. Monte Carlo docking with ubiquitin. Protein Sci. 1995, 4, 885-899.
60. Cummings, M. D.; Hart, T. N.; Read, R. J. Fragment-based modeling of NAD binding to the catalytic subunits of diphtheria and pertussis toxins. Proteins 1998, 31, 282-298.
61. Nissink, J. W. M.; Murray, C.; Hartshorn, M.; Verdonk, M. L.; Cole, J. C. et al. A new test set for validating predictions of protein-ligand interaction. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 2002, 49, 457-471.
62. Shoichet, B. K.; Kuntz, I. D. Protein docking and complementarity. J. Mol. Biol. 1991, 221, 327-346.
63. Kroemer, R. T.; Vulpetti, A.; McDonald, J. J.; Rohrer, D. C.; Trosset, J. Y. et al. Assessment of docking poses: interactions-based accuracy classification (IBAC) versus crystal structure deviations. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 871-881.
64. Wang, R.; Lu, Y.; Wang, S. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 2287-2303.