On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 401-415

  Chen, Hongming ^a   Lyne, Paul D ^a   Giordanetto, Fabrizio ^a   Lovell, Timothy ^a   Li, Jin ^a  

^a ASTRAZENECA R AND D   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATABASE SYSTEMS; DIGITAL LIBRARIES; DRUG THERAPY; FUNCTION EVALUATION; PROTEINS; VIRTUAL REALITY;

ASTRAZENECA; DOCKING PROGRAMS; PROTEIN-LIGAND COMPLEXES; VIRTUAL SCREENING;

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY;

EID: 33244483907     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci0503255     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (57)

1. Scott, R. K. Assessing the impact of high-performance computing on the drug discovery and development process. DDT: Biosilico 2004, 2, 175-179.
2. (a) Kuntz, I. D.; Meng, E. C.; Shoichet, B. K. Structure-based molecular design. Ac. Chem. Res. 1994, 27, 117-123.
3. (b) Gane, P. J.; Dean, P. M. Recent advances in structure-based rational drug design. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2000, 10, 401-404.
4. (a) Shoichet, B. K.; McGovern, S. L.; Wei, B.; Irwin, J. J. Lead discovery using molecular docking. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2002, 6, 439-446.
5. (b) Abagyan, R.; Totrov, M. High-throughput docking for lead generation. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2001, 5, 375-382.
6. Booth, B.; Zemmel, R. Prospects for productivity. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery, 2004, 3, 451-456.
7. (a) Bajorath, J. Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening. Na. Rev. Drug Discovery 2002, 1, 882-894.
8. (b) Lyne, P. D. Structure based virtual screening: an overview. Drug Discovery Today 2002, 7, 1047-1055.
9. (c) Good, A. C.; Krystek, S. R.; Mason, J. S. High-throughput and virtual screening: core lead discovery technologies move towards integration. Drug Discovery Today 2002, 5, S61-S69.
10. Schneider, G.; Bohn, H.-J. Virtual screening and fast automated docking methods. Drug Discovery Today 2002, 7, 64-70.
11. (e) Li, J.; Lovell, T. The emergence of in silico methodologies. World Pharm. Frontiers 2005, in press.
12. Makino, S.; Kuntz, I. D. Automated flexible ligand docking method and its application for database search. J. Comput. Chem. 1997, 18, 1812-1825.
13. 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.
14. Jones, G.; Willett, R.; Glen, R.; Leach, A. R.; Taylor, R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J. Mol. Biol. 1997, 267, 727-748.
15. Morris, G. M.; Goodsell, D. S.; Halliday, R.; Huey, R.; Hart, W. E.; Belew, R. K.; Olson, A. J. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J. Comput. Chem. 1998, 19, 1639-1662.
16. Friesner, R. A.; Banks, J. L.; Murphy, R. B.; Halgren, T. A.; Klicic, J. J.; Mainz, D. T.; Repasky, M. P.; Knoll, E. H.; Shelley, M.; Perry, J. K.; Shaw, D. E.; Francis, P.; Shenkin, P. S. Glide: A New Approach for Rapid, Accurate Docking and Scoring. 1. Method and Assessment of Docking Accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 1739-1749.
17. McMartin, C.; Bohacek, R. S. QXP: Powerful, rapid computer algorithms for structure-based drug design. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1997, 11, 333-344.
18. Abagyan, R.; Totrov, M.; Kuznetsov, R. ICM - A new method for protein modeling and design: applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation. J. Comput. Chem. 1994, 15, 488-506.
19. (a) Kroemer, R. T.; Vulpetti, A.; McDonald, J. J.; Rohrer, D. C.; Trosset, J.-Y.; Giordanetto, F.; Cotesta, S.; McMartin, C.; Kihlen, M.; Stouten, P. F. W. Assessment of Docking Poses: Interactions-Based Accuracy Classification (IBAC) versus Crystal Structure Deviations. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 871-881.
20. (b) Cummings, M. D.; DesJarlais, R. L.; Gibbs, A. C.; Mohan, V.; Jaeger, E. P. Comparison of Automated Docking Programs as Virtual Screening Tools. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 962-976.
21. (c) Perola, E.; Walters, W. P.; Charifson, P. S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 2004, 56, 235-249.
22. 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.
23. (e) Kontoyianni, M.; McClellan, L. M.; Sokol, G. S. Evaluation of Docking Performance: Comparative Data on Docking Algorithms. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 558-565.
24. (f) Wang, R.; Lu, Y.; Wang, S. Comparative Evaluation of 11 Scoring Functions for Molecular Docking. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 2287-2303.
25. (g) Kellenberger, E.; Rodrigo, J.; Muller, P.; Rognan, D. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 2004, 57, 225-242.
26. (h) Bursulaya, B. D.; Totrov, M.; Abagyan, R.; Brooks, C. L., III. Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2003, 17, 755-763.
27. (i) Ferrara, P.; Gohlke, H.; Price, D. J.; Klebe, G.; Brooks, C. L., III. Assessing Scoring Functions for Protein-Ligand Interactions, J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 3032-3047.
28. (i) Warren, G. L.; Andrews, C. W.; Capelli, A.-M.; Clarke, B.; LaLonde, J.; Lambert, M. H.; Lindvall, M.; Nevins, N.; Semus, S. F.; Senger, S.; Tedesco, G.; Wall, I. D.; Woolven, J. M.; Peishoff, C. E.; Head, M. S. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, [ASAP].
29. Cole, J. C.; Murray, C. W.; Nissink, J. W. M.; Taylor, R. D.; Taylor, R. Comparing protein-ligand docking programs is difficult. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 2005, 60, 325-332.
30. (a) Berman, H. M.; Westbrook, J.; Feng, Z.; Gilliland, G.; Bhat, T. N.; Weissig, H.; Shindyalov, I. N.; Bourne, P. E. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000, 28, 235-242.
31. Teague, S. J. Implications for protein flexibility for drug discovery. Nature Rev. Drug Discovery 2003, 2, 527-541.
32. The PDB identification codes of the publicly available proteins studied in this work along with their resolutions in Å are given: 1 aaq 2.50, 1abe 1.70, 1abf 1.90, 1acm 2.80, 1acl 2.80, 1acj 2.80, 1add 2.40, 1aha 2.20, 1apu 1.80, 1apt 1.80, 1aqw 1.80, 1aqx 2.00, 1atl 1.80, 1azm 2.00, 1b8y 2.00, 1baf 2.90, 1bbp 2.00, 1bcu 2.00, 1bhx 2.30, 1bji 2.00, 1cbs 1.80, 1cbx 2.00, 1cil 1.60, 1ciz 1.64, 1com 2.20, 1coy 1.80, 1cps 2.25, 1ctt 2.20, 1dbb 2.70, 1dbj 2.70, 1did 2.50, 1die 2.50, 1dmp 2.00, 1dog 2.40, 1dth 2.00, 1dwb 3.16, 1dwd 3.00, leap 2.50, 1ebg 2.10, 1eed 2.00, 1ela 1.80, 1elb 2.10, 1elc 1.75, 1epb 2.20, 1epo 2.00, 1ere 3.10, 1err 2.60, 1etr 2.20, 1ett 2.50, 1fax 3.00, 1fkg 2.00, 1fki 2.20, 1frp 2.00, 1glp 1.90, 1glq 1.80, 1hck 1.90, 1hdc 2.20, 1hfc 1.56, 1hfs 1.70, 1hpv 1.90, 1hri 3.00, 1hsl 1.89, 1htf 2.20, 1hvr 1.80, 1hyt 1.70, 1icn 1.74, 1igj 2.50, 1imb 2.20, live 2.40, 1jao 2.40, 1lah 2.06, 1lcp 1.65, 1ldm 2.10, 1lic 1.60, 1lmo 1.80, 1lst 1.80, 1mcr 2.70, 1mdr 2.10, 1mmb 2.10, 1mmq 1.90, 1mnc 2.10, 1mrg 1.80, 1mrk 1.60, 1mtw 1.90, 1mup 2.40, 1nco 1.80, 1nsd 1.80, 1ohj 2.50, 1okl 2.10, 1okm 2.20, 1pbd 2.30, 1phf 1.60, 1ppc 1.80, 1pph 1.90, 1poc 2.00, 1qbt 2.10, 1qbu 1.80, 1rbp 2.00, 1rne 2.40, 1rob 1.60, 1sln 2.27, 1snc 1.65, 1srj 1.80, 1stp 2.60, 1tka 2.70, 1tng 1.80, 1tnh 1.80, 1tnl 1.90, 1tph 1.80, 1tpp 1.40. 1uag 1.95, 1ukz 1.90, 1ulb 2.75, 1usn 1.80, 1uvs 2.80, 1uvt 2.50, 1wap 1.80, 1web 1.50, 1wec 1.50, 1wed 1.50, 1xid 1.70, 1xie 1.70, 1xug 1.50, 1ydr 2.20, 1yds 2.20, 1ydt 2.30, 2ada 2.40, 2cgr 2.20, 2cht 2.20, 2cmd 1.87, 2cpp 1.63, 2ctc 1.40, 2dbl 2.90, 2gbp 1.90, 2h4n 1.90, 2ifb 2.00, 2phh 2.70, 2sim 1.60, 2tmn 1.60, 2tsc 1.97, 2usn 2.20, 2ypi 2.50, 3aah 2.40, 3cla 1.75, 3erd 2.03, 3ert 1.90, 3hvt 2.90, 3ptb 1.70, 3tpi 1.90, 4cts 2.90, 4dfr 1.70, 4fab 2.70, 4phv 2.10, 4tim 2.40, 4tpi 2.20, 5abp 1.80, 5tim 1.83, 5tln 2.30, 6abp 1.67, 6cpa 2.00, 6rnt 1.80, 7tim 1.90, 8ate 2.50, 8gch 1.60.
33. Sybyl, version 6.5; Tripos Inc.: St. Louis, MO.
34. Glide, version 3.5; Schrödinger LLC: New York, 2005.
35. ICM, version 3.2.01a; Molsoft LLC: San Diego, CA, 2004.
36. Gasteiger, J.; Rudolph, C.; Sadowski, J. Automatic generation of 3D atomic coordinates for organic molecules. Tetrahedron Comput. Methodol. 1990, 3, 537-5547.
37. Pipeline Pilot, version 4.5; SciTegic: San Diego, CA.
38. Stahl, M.; Rarey, M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1035-1042.
39. Halgren, T. A. Merck molecular force field: 1. Basis, form, scope, parametrization, and performance of MMFF94. J. Comput. Chem. 1995, 17, 490-519.
40. ROCS, version 2.0; Openeye Scientific Software LLC: Santa Fe, New Mexico.
41. ISIS/Base, version 2.3; MDL Information Systems, Inc.: San Leandro, CA.
42. Leach, A. R.; Kuntz, I. D. Conformational analysis of flexible ligands in macromolecular receptor sites, J. Comput. Chem. 1992, 13, 730-748.
43. Allen. F. H.; Davies, J. E.; Galloy, J. J.; Johnson, O.; Kennard, O.; Macrae, C. F.; Mitchell, E. M.; Mitchell, G. F.; Smith, J. M.; Watson, D. G. The development of versions 3 and 4 of the Cambridge Structural Database System. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1991, 31, 187-204.
44. Böhm, H. J. A novel computational tool for automated structure-based drug design. J. Mol. Recog. 1993, 6, 131-137.
45. Jones, G.; Willett, P.; Glen, R. C. A genetic algorithm for flexible molecular overlay and pharmacophore elucidation. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1995, 9, 532-549.
46. Eldridge, M.; Murray, C. W.; Auton, T. A.; Paolini, G. V.; Lee, 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.
47. Nemethy, G.; Gibson, K. D.; Palmer, K. A.; Yoon, C. N.; Paterlini, G.; Zagari, A.; Rumsey, S.; Scheraga, H. A. 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.
48. Abagyan, R. A.; Totrov, M. M. Biased Probability Monte Carlo Conformational Searches and Electrostatic Calculations For Peptides and Proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 1994, 235, 983-1002.
49. Metropolis, N.; Rosenbluth, A. W.; Rosenbluth, M. N.; Teller, A. H.; Teller, E. Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines. J. Chem. Phys. 1953, 21, 1087-1092.
50. Abagyan, R. A.; Totrov, M. M. Ab Initio Folding of Peptides by the Optimal-Bias Monte Carlo Minimization Procedure. J. Comput. Phys. 1999, 151, 402-421.
51. (a) Abagyan, R. A.; Argos, P. Optimal Protocol and Trajectory Visualization For Conformational Searches of Peptides and Proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 1992, 225, 519-532.
52. (b) Li, Z.; Scheraga, H. A. Monte Carlo-Minimization Approach to the Multiple-Minima Problem in Protein Folding. PNAS 1987 84, 6611-6615.
53. (a) An, J.; Totrov, M.; Abagyan, R. Pocketome via comprehensive identification and classification of ligand binding envelopes. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2005, 4, 752-761.
54. (b) An, J.; Totrov, M.; Abagyan, R. Comprehensive identification of druggable protein ligand binding sites. Genome Inf. 2005, 15, 31-41.
55. (a) Kramer, B.; Rarey, M.; Lengauer, T. Evaluation of the FlexX incremental construction algorithm for protein-ligand docking. Proteins 1999, 37, 228-241.
56. (b) Gohlke, H.; Hendlich, M.; Klebe, G. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 2000, 295, 337-356.
57. Cheney, D.; Mueller, L. Evaluation of Strategies for Molecular Docking, 226th ACS Meeting, New York, NY, 2003.