Identification of a Minimal Subset of Receptor Conformations for Improved Multiple Conformation Docking and Two-Step Scoring

Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 88-96

  Yoon, Sukjoon ^a   Welsh, William J ^a  

^a RUTGERS ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG SCREENING; MOLECULAR MECHANICS; PROTEIN DYNAMICS;

ALGORITHMS; BINDING ENERGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFORMATIONS; CORRELATION METHODS; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; DRUG PRODUCTS; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; MONTE CARLO METHODS; SET THEORY;

PROTEINS;

CELL SURFACE RECEPTOR;

ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; METABOLISM; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION;

PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; RECEPTORS, CELL SURFACE;

EID: 1542741046     PISSN: 00952338     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci0341619     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Brooijmans, N.; Kuntz, I. D. Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 2003, 32, 335-373.
2. Drews, J. Drug discovery: A historical perspective. Science 2000, 287, 1960-1964.
3. Onuchic, J. N. Contacting the protein folding funnel with NMR. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1997, 94, 7129-7131.
4. Shoemaker, B. A.; Wang, J.; Wolynes, P. G. Structural correlations in protein folding funnels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1997, 94, 777-782.
5. Ma, B.; Kumacr, S.; Tsai, C.-J.; Nussinov, R. Folding funnels and binding mechanisms. Protein Eng. 1999, 12, 713-720.
6. Carlson, H. A.; McCammon, J. A. Accommodating protein flexibility in computational drug design. Mol. Pharmacol. 2000, 57, 213-218.
7. Pang, Y. P.; Kozikowski, A. Prediction of the binding sites of huperizine A in acetylcholinesterase by docking studies. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1994, 8, 669-681.
8. Carlson, H. A.; Masukawa, J.; McCammon, J. A. Method for including the dynamic fluctuations of a protein in computer-aided drug design. J. Phys. Chem. 1999, 103, 10213-10219.
9. Claussen, H.; Buning, C.; Rarey, M.; Lengauer, T. FlexE; Efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations. J. Mol. Biol. 2001, 308, 377-395.
10. Blair, R. M.; Fang, H.; Branham, W. S.; Hass, B. S.; Dial, S. L.; et al. The estrogen receptor relative binding affinities of 188 natural and xenochemicals: Structural diversity of ligands. Toxicol. Sci, 2000, 54, 138-153.
11. Hong, H.; Tong, W.; Fang, H.; Shi, L.; Xie, Q.; et al. Prediction of estrogen receptor binding for 58,000 chemicals using an integrated system of a tree-based model with structural alerts. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002, 110, 29-36.
12. Fang, H.; Tong, W.; Shi, L. M.; Blair, R.; Perkins, R.; et al. Structure-activity relationships for a large diverse set of natural, synthetic, and environmental estrogens. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2001, 14, 280-294.
13. Gustafsson, J. A.; Kuiper, G. G. J. M.; Enmark, E.; Treuter, E.; Rafter, J. Receptor-mediated toxicity. Arch. Toxicol. 1998, 20, 21-28.
14. Waller, C. L.; Oprea, T. I.; Chau, K.; Park, H. K.; Korach, K. S.; et al. Ligand-based identification of environmental estrogens. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 1996, 9, 1240-1248.
15. Soto, A. M.; Sonnenschein, C.; Chung, K. L.; Fernandez, M. F.; Oka, N.; et al. The E-screen assay as a tool to identify estrogens - An update on estrogenic environmental-pollutants. Environ. Health Perspect. 1995, 103, 113-122.
16. Breinholt, V.; Larsen, J. C. Detection of weak estrogenic flavonoids using a recombinant yeast strain and a modified MCF7 cell proliferation assay. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 1998, 11, 622-629.
17. Garner, C. E.; Jefferson, W. N.; Burka, L. T.; Mattews, H. B.; Newbold, R. R. In vitro estrogenicity of the catechol metabolites of selected polychlorinated biphenyls. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 1999, 154, 188-197.
18. Gantehev, T. G.; Ali, H.; Van Lier, J. E. Quantitative structure-activity relationships/comparative molecular field analysis (QSAR/CoMFA) for receptor-binding properties of halogenated estradiol derivatives. J. Med. Chem. 1994, 1994, 4164-4176.
19. Yu, S. J.; Keenan, S. M.; Tong, W.; Welsh, W. J. Influence of the structural diversity of data sets on the statistical quality of three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship (3D-QSAR) models: Predicting the estrogenic activity of xenoestrogens. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2002, 15, 1229-1234.
20. Tong, W.; Perkins, R.; Xing, L.; Welsh, W. J. QSAR models for binding of estrogenic compounds to estrogen receptor α and β subtypes. Endocrinology 1997, 138, 4022-4025.
21. Case, D. A.; Pearlman, D. A.; Caldwell, J. W.; Cheatham, T. E., III; Wang, J.; et al. AMBER7; University of California: San Francisco, 2002.
22. Bostrom, J. Reproducing the conformations of protein-bound ligands: A critical evaluation of several popular conformational searching tools. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2001, 15, 1137-1152.
23. Sadowski, J.; Gasteiger, J. From atoms and bonds to three-dimensional atomic coordinates: Automatic model builders. Chem. Rev. 1993, 93, 2567-2581.
24. Oostenbrink, B. C.; Pitera, J.; van Lipzig, M.; Meerman, J.; van Gunsteren, W. Simulations of the estrogen receptor ligand-binding domain: Affinity of natural ligands and xenoestrogens. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 4594-4605.
25. 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, 207, 727-748.
26. Tsui, V.; Case, D. A. Theory and applications of the generalized Born solvation model in macromolecular simulations. Biopolymers 2000, 56, 275-291.
27. Bissantz, C.; Folkers, G.; Rognan, D. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical database. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 4759-4767.
28. Lin, J. H.; Perryman, A. L.; Schames, J. R.; McCammon, J. A. Computational drug design accommodating receptor flexibility: The relaxed complex scheme. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 5632-5633.
29. Hand, D.; Mannila, H.; Smyth, P. Principles of data mining; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2001.