A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 56, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 235-249

  Perola, Emanuele ^a   Walters, W Patrick ^a   Charifson, Paul S ^a  

^a VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS   (United States)

Author keywords

ChemScore; Drug like; Enrichment factors; Glide; Glide Score; GOLD; ICM; OPLS AA; Test set; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

DOCKING PROTEIN; MITOGEN ACTIVATED PROTEIN KINASE P38; PROTEINASE;

ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; BINDING SITE; CRYSTALLOGRAPHY; GENETIC VARIABILITY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BINDING; SCORING SYSTEM;

ALGORITHMS; BINDING SITES; CRYSTALLOGRAPHY, X-RAY; DRUG DESIGN; ENZYME INHIBITORS; HIV PROTEASE; HIV PROTEASE INHIBITORS; HYDROPHOBICITY; IMP DEHYDROGENASE; KINETICS; LIGANDS; MACROMOLECULAR SUBSTANCES; MITOGEN-ACTIVATED PROTEIN KINASES; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; P38 MITOGEN-ACTIVATED PROTEIN KINASES; PLIABILITY; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS; ROTATION; SOFTWARE; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; THERMODYNAMICS;

EID: 3042806401     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.20088     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Muegge I, Rarey M. Small molecule docking and scoring. In: Lipkowitz KB, Boyd DB, editors. Reviews in computational chemistry. Vol. 17. New York: Wiley-VCH; 2001.
2. Taylor RD, Jewsbury PJ, Essex JW. A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2002;16:151-166.
3. Halperin I, Ma B, Wolfson H, Nussinov R. Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins 2002;47:409-443.
4. Shoichet BK, McGovern SL, Wei B, Irwin JJ. Lead discovery using molecular docking. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2002;6:439-446.
5. Schneider G, Bohm HJ. Virtual screening and fast automated docking methods. Drug Discov Today 2002;7:64-70.
6. Perez C, Ortiz AR. Evaluation of docking functions for protein-ligand docking. J Med Chem 2001;44:3768-3785.
7. 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.
8. Stahl M, Rarey M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J Med Chem 2001;44:1035-1042.
9. Charifson PS, Corkery JJ, Murcko MA, Walters WP. 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.
10. Verkhiver GM, Bouzida D, Gehlhaar DK, Rejto PA, Arthurs S, Colson AB, Freer ST, Larson V, Luty BA, Marrone T, Rose PW. Deciphering common failures in molecular docking of ligand-protein complexes. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2000;14: 731-751.
11. Stahl M, Bohm HJ. Development of filter functions for protein-ligand docking. J Mol Graph Model 1998;16:121-132.
12. Charifson PS, Walters WP. Filtering databases and chemical libraries. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2002;16:311-323.
13. Ewing TJ, Makino S, Skillman AG, Kuntz ID. DOCK 4.0: search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2001;15:411-428.
14. Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T, Klebe G. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol 1996;261:470-489.
15. Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC, Leach AR, Taylor R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J Mol Biol 1997;267:727-748.
16. Clark RD, Strizhev A, Leonard JM, Blake JF, Matthew JB. Consensus scoring for ligand/protein interactions. J Mol Graph Model 2002;20:281-295.
17. Paul N, Rognan D. ConsDock: a new program for the consensus analysis of protein-ligand interactions. Proteins 2002;47:521-533.
18. Waszkowycz B. Structure-based approaches to drug design and virtual screening. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2002;5:407-413.
19. Pickett SD, Sherborne BS, Wilkinson T, Bennett J, Borkakoti N, Broadhurst M, Hurst D, Kilford I, MCKinnell M, Jones PS. Discovery of a novel low molecular weight inhibitors of IMPDH via virtual needle screening. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2003;13:1691-1694.
20. Jenkins JL, Kao RY, Shapiro R. Virtual screening to enrich hit lists from high-throughput screening: a case study on small-molecule inhibitors of angiogenin. Proteins 2003;50:81-93.
21. Vangrevelinghe E, Zimmermann K, Schoepfer J, Portmann R, Fabbro D, Furet P. Discovery of a potent and selective protein kinase CK2 inhibitor by high-throughput docking. J Med Chem 2003;46:2656-2662.
22. Kramer B, Rarey M, Lengauer T. Evaluation of the FLEXX incremental construction algorithm for protein-ligand docking. Proteins 1999;37:228-241.
23. Verdonk ML, Cole JC, Hartshorn MJ, Murray CW, Taylor RD. Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins 2003;52: 609-623.
24. Totrov M, Abagyan R. Flexible protein-ligand docking by global energy optimization in internal coordinates. Proteins 1997;Suppl 1:215-220.
25. Glide 2.5. New York: Schrodinger; 2003.
26. Abagyan R, Totrov M. High-throughput docking for lead generation. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2001;5:375-382.
27. Available online at www.schrodinger.com/docs/2003_1/pdf/firstdiscovery/ fd27_technical_notes.pdf
28. Eldridge MD, Murray CW, Auton TR, Paolini GV, Mee RP. 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.
29. Murray CW, Auton TR, Eldridge MD. 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.
30. Schulz-Gasch T, Stahl M. Binding site characteristics in structure-based virtual screening: evaluation of current docking tools. J Mol Model (Online) 2003;9:47-57.
31. Roche O, Kiyama R, Brooks CL III. Ligand-protein database: linking protein-ligand complex structures to binding data. J Med Chem 2001;44:3592-3598.
32. Nissink JW, Murray C, Hartshorn M, Verdonk ML, Cole JC, Taylor R. A new test set for validating predictions of protein-ligand interaction. Proteins 2002;49:457-471.
33. Jorgensen WL, Maxwell D, Tirado-Rives J. Development and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids. J Am Chem Soc 1996;118: 11225-11236.
34. Egan WJ, Walters WP, Murcko MA. Guiding molecules towards drug-likeness. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2002;5:540-549.
35. Nemethy G, Gibson KD, Palmer KA, Yoon CN, Paterlini G, Zagari A, Rumsey S, Scheraga HA. Energy parameters in polypeptides: 10. Improved geometrical parameters and nonbonded interactions for use in the ECEPP/3 algorithm, with application to proline-containing peptides. J Phys Chem 1992;96:6472-6484.
36. Gasteiger J, Rudolph C, Sadowski J. Automatic generation of 3D-atomic coordinates for organic molecules. Tetrahedrom Comp Method 1990;3:537-547.
37. Halgren TA, Merck molecular force field: I. Basis, form, scope, paramaterization, and performance of MMFF94. J Comput Chem 1996;17:490-519.
38. Halgren TA. Merck molecular force field: II. MMFF94 van der Waals and electrostatic parameters for intermolecular interactions. J Comput Chem 1996;17:520-552.
39. Halgren TA. Merck molecular force field: III. Molecular geometries and vibrational frequences for MMFF94. J Comput Chem 1996;17:553-586.
40. Totrov M, Abagyan R. Derivation of sensitive discrimination potential for virtual ligand screening. In: RECOMB '99: Proceedings of the Third Annual International Conference on Computational Molecular Biology, Lyon, France, April 11-14, 1999; Istrail S, Pevzner P, Waterman M, eds. Association for Computing Machinery, New York; 1999.