Improving binding mode predictions by docking into protein-specifically adapted potential fields

Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 48, Issue 17, 2005, Pages 5466-5479

  Radestock, Sebastian ^a   Böhm, Markus ^b   Gohlke, Holger ^a,c  

^a GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b PFIZER INC   (United States)

^c NONE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROTEINASE INHIBITOR;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; BINDING SITE; CHEMICAL BOND; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG STRUCTURE; ENTROPY; PREDICTION; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; SCORING SYSTEM; VALIDATION PROCESS;

BINDING SITES; DRUG DESIGN; HIV PROTEASE; HIV PROTEASE INHIBITORS; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; PROTEIN BINDING; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; THERMODYNAMICS;

EID: 23944499528     PISSN: 00222623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jm050114r     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Drews, J. Drug discovery: A historical perspective. Science 2000, 287, 1960-1964.
2. Lyne, P. D. Structure-based virtual screening: an overview. Drug Discovery Today 2002, 7, 1047-1055.
3. Hirst, J. D. Predicting ligand binding energies. Curr. Opin. Drug Discovery Dev. 1998, 1, 28-33.
4. Gohlke, H.; Klebe, G. Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2002, 41, 2644-2676.
5. Sotriffer, C.; Stahl, M.; Boehm, H. J.; Klebe, G. Docking and Scoring Functions/Virtual Screening. Burger's Medicinal Chemistry and Drug Discovery; Wiley: New York, 2003; pp 281-333.
6. Verdonk, M. L.; Cole, J. C.; Hartshorn, M. J.; Murray, C. W.; Taylor, R. D. Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins 2003, 52, 609-623.
7. Kontoyanni, M.; McClellan, L. M.; Sokol, G. S. Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithm. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 558-565.
8. Schneider, G.; Neidhardt, W.; Giller, T.; Schmid, G. "Scaffold- hopping" by topological pharmacophore search: A contribution to virtual screening. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 2894-2896.
9. Norinder, U. Recent Progress in CoMFA Methodology and Related Techniques. 3D QSAR in Drug Design; Kluwer Academic Publisher: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998; pp 25-39.
10. Lemmen, C.; Lengauer, T. Computational methods for the structural alignment of molecules. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14, 215-232.
11. Dean, P. M. Molecular Similarity in Drug Design; Chapman-Hall: London, 1995.
12. Fradera, X.; Mestres, J. Guided docking approaches to structure-based design and screening. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2004, 4, 687-700.
13. Gruneberg, S.; Stubbs, M. T.; Klebe, G. Successful virtual screening for novel inhibitors of human carbonic anhydrase: strategy and experimental confirmation. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 3588-3602.
14. Schafferhans, A.; Klebe, G. Docking ligands onto binding site representations derived from proteins built by homology modelling. J. Mol. Biol. 2001, 307, 407-427.
15. Evers, A.; Gohlke, H.; Klebe, G. Ligand-supported homology modelling of protein binding sites using knowledge-based potentials. J. Mol. Biol. 2003, 334, 327-345.
16. Verdonk, M. L.; Cole, J. C.; Taylor, R. SuperStar: A knowledge-based approach for identifying interaction sites in proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 1999, 289, 1093-1108.
17. Gohlke, H.; Hendlich, M.; Klebe, G. Predicting binding modes, binding affinities and "hot spots" for protein-ligand complexes using a knowledge-based scoring function. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 2000, 20, 115-144.
18. Fradera, X.; Knegtel, R. M.; Mestres, J. Similarity-driven flexible ligand docking. Proteins 2000, 40, 623-636.
19. Kindle, S. A.; Rarey, M.; Buning, C.; Lengaue, T. Flexible docking under pharmacophore type constraints. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 129-149.
20. Daeyaert, F.; de Jonge, M.; Heeres, J.; Koymans, L.; Lewi, P.; et al. A pharmacophore docking algorithm and its application to the cross-docking of 18 HIV-NNRTI's in their binding pockets. Proteins 2004, 54, 526-533.
21. Wu, G.; Vieth, M. SDOCKER: a method utilizing existing X-ray structures to improve docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 3142-3148.
22. Holloway, M. K.; Wai, J. M.; Halgren, T. A.; Fitzgerald, P. M.; Vacca, J. P.; et al. A priori prediction of activity for HIV-1 protease inhibitors employing energy minimization in the active site. J. Med. Chem. 1995, 38, 305-317.
23. Ortiz, A. R.; Pisabarro, M. T.; Gago, F.; Wade, R. C. Prediction of drug binding affinities by comparative binding energy analysis. J. Med. Chem. 1995, 38, 2681-2691.
24. Murray, C. W.; Auton, T. R.; Eldridge, M. D. Empirical scoring functions. II. The testing of an empirical scoring function for the prediction of ligand-receptor binding affinities and the use of Bayesian regression to improve the quality of the model. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1998, 12, 503-519.
25. 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. 2002, 45, 4153-4170.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Kitchen, D. B.; Decornez, H.; Furr, J. R.; Bajorath, J. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: Methods and applications. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2004, 3, 935-949.
29. Gohlke, H.; Hendlich, M.; Klebe, G. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 2000, 295, 337-356.
30. Wang, R.; Lu, Y.; Fang, X.; Wang, S. An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein - ligand complexes. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 2114-2125.
31. Wang, R.; Lu, Y.; Wang, S. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 2287-2303.
32. Ferrara, P.; Gohlke, H.; Price, D. J.; Klebe, G.; Brooks, C. L. Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 3032-3047.
33. Sotriffer, C. A.; Gohlke, H.; Klebe, G. Docking into knowledge-based potential fields: A comparative evaluation of DrugScore. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 1967-1970.
34. Rose, J. R.; Salto, R.; Craik, C. S. Regulation of autoproteolysis of the HIV-1 and HIV-2 proteases with engineered amino-acid substitutions. J. Biol. Chem. 1993, 268, 11939-11945.
35. Mildner, A. M.; Rothrock, D. J.; Leone, J. W.; Bannow, C. A.; Lull, J. M.; et al. The HIV-1 protease as enzyme and substrate. Mutagenesis of autolysis sites and generation of a stable mutant with retained kinetic-properties. Biochemistry 1994, 33, 9405-9413.
36. Wlodawer, A.; Miller, M.; Jaskolski, M.; Sathyanarayana, B. K.; Baldwin, E.; et al. Conserved folding in retroviral proteases. Crystal-structure of a synthetic HIV-1 protease. Science 1989, 245, 616-621.
37. Davis, D. A.; Dorsey, K.; Wingfield, P. T.; Stahl, S. J.; Kaufman, J.; et al. Regulation of HIV-1 protease activity through cysteine modification. Biochemistry 1996, 35, 2482-2488.
38. Hendlich, M.; Bergner, A.; Gunther, J.; Klebe, G. Relibase: design and development of a database for comprehensive analysis of protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 2003, 326, 607-620.
39. Gerber, P. R.; Müller, K. MAB, a generally applicable molecular force field for structure modelling in medicinal chemistry. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1995, 9, 251-268.
40. Backbro, K.; Lowgren, S.; Osterlund, K.; Atepo, J.; Unge, T.; et al. Unexpected binding mode of a cyclic sulfamide HIV-1 protease inhibitor. J. Med. Chem. 1997, 40, 898-902.
41. Kulkarni, S. S.; Kulkarni, V. M. Structure based prediction of binding affinity of human immunodeficiency virus-1 protease inhibitors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 39, 1128-1140.
42. Wang, Y. X.; Freedberg, D. I.; Yamazaki, T.; Wingfield, P. T.; Stahl, S. J.; et al. Solution NMR evidence that the HIV-1 protease catalytic aspartyl groups have different ionization states in the complex formed with the asymmetric drug KNI-272. Biochemistry 1996, 35, 9945-9950.
43. Nam, K. Y.; Chang, B. H.; Han, C. K.; Ahn, S. G.; No, K. T. Investigation of the protonated state of HIV-1 protease active site. Bull. Korean Chem. Soc. 2003, 24, 817-823.
44. Chen, X. N.; Tropsha, A. Relative binding free-energies of peptide inhibitors of HIV-1 protease. The influence of the active-site protonation state. J. Med. Chem. 1995, 38, 42-48.
45. Weiner, S.; Kollman, P. A.; Nguyen, D. T.; Case, D. A. An all atom force field for simulations of proteins and nucleic acids. J. Comput. Chem. 1986, 7, 230-252.
46. 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.
47. Jaskolski, M.; Tomasselli, A. G.; Sawyer, T. K.; Staples, D. G.; Heinrikson, R. L.; et al. Structure at 2.5-Å resolution of chemically synthesized human-immunodeficiency-virus type-1 protease complexed with a hydroxyethylene-based inhibitor. Biochemistry 1991, 30, 1600-1609.
48. Schaal, W.; Karlsson, A.; Ahlsen, G.; Lindberg, J.; Andersson, H. O.; et al. Synthesis and comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) of symmetric and nonsymmetric cyclic sulfamide HIV-1 protease inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 155-169.
49. Gasteiger, J.; Marsili, M. Iterative partial equalization of orbital electronegativity. A rapid access to atomic charges. Tetrahedron 1980, 36, 3219-3228.
50. Wold, S.; Ruhe, A.; Wold, H.; Dunn, W. J., III. The collinearity problem in linear regression. The partial least squares approach to generalized inverses. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 1984, 5, 735-743.
51. Wold, S.; Johansson, E.; Cocchi, M. PLS-Partial Least Squares Projections to Latent Structures. 3D QSAR in Drug Design. Theory, Methods and Applications; ESCOM: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1993.
52. Cramer, R. D., III; Patterson, D. E.; Bunce, J. D. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). I. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110, 5959.
53. Bush, B. L.; Nachbar, R. B. Sample-distance partial least squares: PLS optimized for many variables, with application to CoMFA. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1993, 7, 587-619.
54. Kubinyi, H.; Abraham, U. Practical Problems in PLS Analyses. 3D QSAR in Drug Design. Theory, Methods and Applications; ESCOM: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1993; pp 717-728.
55. Shannon, C. E.; Weaver, W. W. Mathematical Theory of Communication; University of Illinois Press: Chicago, IL, 1949.
56. Goodsell, D. S.; Morris, G. M.; Olson, A. J. Automated docking of flexible ligands: Applications of AutoDock. J. Mol. Recognit. 1996, 9, 1-5.
57. Thibaut, U.; Folkers, G.; Klebe, G.; Kubinyi, H.; Merz, A.; et al. Recommendations to CoMFA Studies and 3D QSAR Publications. 3D QSAR in Drug Design. Theory, Methods and Applications; ESCOM: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1993; pp 711-716.
58. Kim, K. Non-linear dependencies in CoMFA. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1993, 7, 71-82.
59. Folkers, G.; Merz, A.; Rognan, D. CoMFA: Scope and Limitations. 3D QSAR in Drug Design; ESCOM: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1993; pp 583-618.
60. 2! J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2002, 20, 269-276.
61. Cramer, R. D., III; DePriest, S. A.; Patterson, D. E.; Hecht, P. The Developing Practice of Comparative Molecular Field Analysis. 3D QSAR in Drug Design. Theory, Methods and Applications; ESCOM: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1993.
62. Morris, G. M.; Goosell, D. S.; Huey, R.; Hart, W. E.; Belew, R. K.; et al. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J. Comput. Chem. 1998, 19, 1693-1662.
63. Erickson, J. A.; Jalaie, M.; Robertson, D. H.; Lewis, R. A.; Vieth, M. Lessons in molecular recognition: the effects of ligand and protein flexibility on molecular docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 45-55.
64. Murray, C. W.; Baxter, C. A.; Frenkel, A. D. 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.
65. Österberg, 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 2002, 46, 34-40.
66. Knegtel, R. M.; Kuntz, I. D.; Oshiro, C. M. Molecular docking to ensembles of protein structures. J. Mol. Biol. 1997, 266, 424-440.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. Kramer, B.; Rarey, M.; Lengauer, T. Evaluation of the FlexX incremental construction algorithm for protein-ligand docking. Proteins 1999, 37, 145-156.
70. Yang, J. M.; Chen, C. C. GEMDOCK: a generic evolutionary method for molecular docking. Proteins 2004, 55, 288-304.
71. Budin, N.; Majeux, N.; Caflish, A. Fragment-based flexible ligand docking by evolutionary optimization. Biol. Chem. 2001, 382, 1365-1372.
72. Cecchini, M.; Kolb, P.; Majeux, N.; Caflish, A. Automated docking of highly flexible ligands by genetic algorithms: A critical assessment. J. Comput. Chem. 2003, 25, 412-422.
73. SYBYL Molecular Modeling Software, version 6.6; Tripos Inc.: St. Louis, MO.