Making the best account of molecular docking in drug design

Fabad Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 81-92

  Pospisil, Pavel ^a   Folkers, Gerd ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Covalent binding; Crystal metal ions; Crystal water molecules; Database filtering; Docking; Energy of binding; Flexibility

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; DATA BASE; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG INDUSTRY; MOLECULAR MODEL; PROTEIN TARGETING; REVIEW; SCREENING; TECHNIQUE;

EID: 21744442423     PISSN: 13004182     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. Mander T. Beyond uHTS: ridiculously HTS?, Drug Discovery Today, 5, 223-225, 2000.
2. Lahana R. How many leads from HTS?, Drug Discovery Today, 4, 447-448, 1999.
3. Schneider G, Bohm HJ. Virtual screening and fast automated docking methods, Drug Discovery Today, 7, 64-70, 2002.
4. Waszkowycz B, Perkins TDJ, Sykes RA, Li J. Large-scale virtual screening for discovering leads in the postgenomic era, Ibm Systems Journal, 40, 360-376, 2001.
5. Walters WP, Stahl MT, Murcko MA. Virtual screening - an overview, Drug Discovery Today, 3, 160-178, 1998.
6. Pickett SD, McLay IM, Clark DE. Enhancing the hit-to-lead properties of lead optimization libraries, J. Chan. Inf. Comput. Sci., 40, 263-272, 2000.
7. Halperin I, Ma BY, Wolfson H, Nussinov R. Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions, Proteins-Structure Function and Genetics, 47, 409-443, 2002.
8. Pospisil P, Ballmer P, Scapozza L, Folkers G. Tautomerism in computer-aided drug design, J. Recept. Signal Transduct. Res., 23, 361-371, 2003.
9. Lengauer T. Bioinformatics - From Genomes to Drugs, Wiley CH ed., Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 442, 2002.
10. http://www.cmpharm.ucsf.edu/kuntz/DOCK, 2002.
11. Ewing TJA, Makino S, Skillman AG, Kuntz ID. DOCK 4.0: search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 15, 411-428, 2001.
12. Rognan D, personal communication, 2000.
13. Bohm HJ. On the use of Ludi to search the fine chemicals directory for ligands of proteins of known 3-dimensional structure, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 8, 623-632, 1994.
14. Bohm HJ. The' development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein ligand complex of known 3-dimensional structure, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 8, 243-256, 1994.
15. Bohm HJ. The computer-program Ludi - a new method for the de novo design of enzyme-inhibitors, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 6, 61-78, 1992.
16. Mitchell JBO, Laskowski RA, Alex A, Thornton JM. BLEEP - potential of mean force describing protein-ligand interactions: I. generating potential, J Comput Chem, 20, 1165-1176, 1999.
17. Muegge I, Martin YC. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach, J. Med. Chem., 42, 791-804, 1999.
18. Gohlke H, Hendlich M, Klebe G. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions, J. Mol. Biol., 295, 337-356, 2000.
19. http://www.tripos.com/sciTech/inSilicoDisc/virtual Screening/cscore.html CScore, 2002.
20. Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T, Klebe G. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm, J. Mol. Biol., 261, 470-489, 1996.
21. Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC, Leach AR, Taylor R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking, J. Mol. Biol., 267, 727-748, 1997.
22. Eldridge MD, Murray CW, Auton TR, Paolini GV, Mee RP. Empirical scoring functions. 1. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 11, 425-445, 1997.
23. http://www.cmpharm.ucsf.edu/kuntz/FRED docking program.
24. Lorber DM, Shoichet BK. Flexible ligand docking using conformational ensembles, Protein Sci, 7, 938-950, 1998.
25. Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Halliday RS, Huey R, Hart WE, Belew RK, Olson AJ. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function, J Comput Chem, 19, 1639-1662, 1998.
26. Claussen H, Buning C, Rarey M, Lengauer T. FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations, J. Mol. Biol., 308, 377-395, 2001.
27. Taylor RD, Jewsbury PJ, Essex JW. A review of protein-small molecule docking methods, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 16, 151-166, 2002.
28. Leach AR. Ligand docking to proteins with discrete side-chain flexibility, J. Mol. Biol., 235, 345-356, 1994.
29. Leach AR, Lemon AP. Exploring the conformational space of protein side chains using dead-end elimination and the A* algorithm, Proteins-Structure Function and Genetics, 33, 227-239, 1998.
30. Sandak B, Wolfson HJ, Nussinov R. Flexible docking allowing induced fit in proteins: insights from an open to closed conformational isomers, Proteins, 32, 159-174, 1998.
31. Schnecke V, Swanson CA, Getzoff ED, Tainer JA, Kuhn LA. Screening a peptidyl database for potential ligands to proteins with side-chain flexibility, Proteins-Structure Function and Genetics, 33, 74-87, 1998.
32. Schnecke V, Kuhn LA. Virtual screening with solvation and ligand-induced complementarity, Perspect. Drug Discov. Design, 20, 171-190, 2000.
33. Knegtel RMA, Kuntz ID, Oshiro CM. Molecular docking to ensembles of protein structures, J. Mol. Biol., 266, 424-440, 1997.
34. Schafferhans A, Klebe G. Docking ligands onto binding site representations derived from proteins built by homology modelling, J. Mol. Biol., 307, 407-427, 2001.
35. Wojciechowski M, Skolnick J. Docking of small ligands to low-resolution and theoretically predicted receptor structures, J. Comput Chem, 23, 189-197, 2002.
36. Knegtel RM, Wagener M. Efficacy and selectivity in flexible database docking, Proteins, 37, 334-345, 1999.
37. Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T. Time-efficient docking of flexible ligands into active sites of proteins, Ismb, 3, 300-308, 1995.
38. http://www.library.wisc.edu/help/quickguide/acd.htm ACD.
39. http://www.nci.nih.gov/NCI NIH, 2002.
40. http://www.chemnavigator.com/cnc/chemInfo/iResearchSys.asp iResearch System, 2002.
41. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev., 23, 3-25, 1997.
42. Oprea TI. Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 14, 251-264, 2000.
43. Huuskonen J, Rantanen J, Livingstone D. Prediction of aqueous solubility for a diverse set of organic compounds based on atom-type electrotopological state indices, Eur J Med Chem, 35, 1081-1088, 2000.
44. Ertl P, Rohde B, Selzer P. Fast calculation of molecular polar surface area as a sum of fragment-based contributions and its application to the prediction of drug transport properties, J. Med. Chem., 43, 3714-3717, 2000.
45. Zuegge J, Schneider G, Coassolo P, Lave T. Prediction of hepatic metabolic clearance - comparison and assessment of prediction models, Clin. Pharmacokinet., 40, 553-563, 2001.
46. Sadowski J, Kubinyi H. A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and nondrugs, J. Med. Chem., 41, 3325-3329, 1998.
47. Gillet VJ, Willett P, Bradshaw J. Identification of biological activity profiles using substructural analysis and genetic algorithms, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 38, 165-179, 1998.
48. Wagener M, van Geerestein VJ. Potential drugs and nondrugs: prediction and identification of important structural features, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 40, 280-292, 2000.
49. Muegge I, Heald SL, Brittelli D. Simple selection criteria for drug-like chemical matter, J. Med. Chem., 44, 1841-1846, 2001.
50. http://www.tripos.com/sciTech/inSilicoDisc/chemInfo/concord.html Concord, 2002.
51. Sadowski J, Gasteiger J. From atoms and bonds to 3-dimensional atomic coordinates - automatic model builders, Chem. Rev., 93, 2567-2581, 1993.
52. http://www.rcsb.org Protein Data Bank, 2004.
53. http://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/prods/csd/csd.html Cambridge Structural Database, 2002.
54. Chen IJ, Neamati N, MacKerell AD Jr. Structure-based inhibitor design targeting HIV-1 integrase, Curr Drug Targets Infect Disord, 2, 217-234, 2002.
55. Louch HA, Buczko ES, Woody MA, Venable RM, Varin WF. Identification of a binding site for ganglioside on the receptor binding domain of tetanus toxin, Biochemistry, 41, 13644-13652, 2002.
56. Schapira M, Raaka BM, Samuels HH, Abagyan R. In silico discovery of novel retinoic acid receptor agonist structures, BMC Struct Biol, 1, 1, 2001.
57. Schapira M, Raaka BM, Samuels HH, Abagyan R. Rational discovery of novel nuclear hormone receptor antagonists, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 97, 1008-1013, 2000.
58. Palczewski K, Kumasaka T, Hori T, Behnke CA, Motoshima H, Fox BA, Le Trong I, Teller DC, Okada T, Stenkamp RE, Yamamoto M, Miyano M. Crystal structure of rhodopsin: a G protein-coupled receptor, Science, 289, 739-745, 2000.
59. Hetenyi C, Van Der Spoel D. Efficient docking of peptides to proteins without prior knowledge of the binding site, Protein Sci, 11, 1729-1737, 2002.
60. Marti-Renom MA, Stuart AC, Fiser A, Sanchez R, Melo F, Sali A. Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes, Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct, 29, 291-325, 2000.
61. Sanchez R, Sali A. Evaluation of comparative protein structure modeling by MODELLER-3, Proteins, Suppl 1, 50-58, 1997.
62. 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 Natl Acad Sci USA, 90, 3583-3587, 1993.
63. Sanchez R, Pieper U, Melo F, Eswar N, Marti-Renom MA, Madhusudhan MS, Mirkovic N, Sali A. Protein structure modeling for structural genomics, Nat Struct Biol, 7 Suppl, 986-990, 2000.
64. Pieper U, Eswar N, Stuart AC, Ilyin VA, Sali A. MODBASE, a database of annotated comparative protein structure models, Nucleic Acids Res, 30, 255-259, 2002.
65. Pospisil P, Scapozza L, Folkers G. The role of water in drug design: thymidine kinase as case study, Rational approaches to drug design: 13th European Symposium on Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Prous Science, Barcelona-Philadelphia, 92-96, 2001.
66. Minke WE, Diller DJ, Hol WG, Verlinde CL. The role of waters in docking strategies with incremental flexibility for carbohydrate derivatives: heat-labile enterotoxin, a multivalent test case, J. Med Chem, 42, 1778-1788, 1999.
67. Lam PY, Jadhav PK, Eyermann CJ, Hodge CN, Ru Y, Bacheler LT, Meek JL, Otto MJ, Rayner MM, Wong YN, et al. Rational design of potent, bioavailable, nonpeptide cyclic ureas as HIV protease inhibitors, Science, 263, 380-384, 1994.
68. http://www.moldiscovery.com/index.html GRID20; 20 ed.
69. Cornell WD, Cieplak P, Bayly CI, Gould IR, Merz K, Ferguson DM, Spellmeyer DC, Fox T, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA. A second generation force field for the simulation of proteins, nucleic acids, and organic molecules, J Am Chem Soc, 117, 5179-5197, 1995.
70. Kramer B, Rarey M, Lengauer T. Evaluation of the FLEXX incremental construction algorithm for protein-ligand docking, Proteins-Structure Function and Genetics, 37, 228-241, 1999.
71. http://www.bch.msu.edu/labs/kuhn/web/projects/slide/home.html SLIDE, 2002.
72. http://www.bch.msu.edu/labs/kuhn/web/software/consolv/doc.html Consolv, 2002.
73. Raymer ML, Sanschagrin PC, Punch WF, Venkataraman S, Goodman ED, Kuhn LA. Predicting conserved water-mediated and polar ligand interactions in proteins using a K-nearest-neighbors genetic algorithm, J Mol Biol, 265, 445-464, 1997.
74. Wright GD, Honek JF. Effects of iron binding agents on Saccharomyces cerevisiae growth and cytochrome P450 content, Can. J. Microbiol., 35, 945-950, 1989.
75. Schindler T, Bornmann W, Pellicena P, Miller WT, Clarkson B, Kuriyan J. Structural mechanism for STI-571 inhibition of abelson tyrosine kinase, Science, 289, 1938-1942, 2000.
76. Liu S, Widom J, Kemp CW, Crews CM, Clardy J. Structure of human methionine aminopeptidase-2 complexed with fumagillin, Science, 282, 1324-1327, 1998.