Protein-ligand docking: Current status and future challenges

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 65, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 15-26

  Sousa, Sérgio Filipe ^a   Fernandes, Pedro Alexandrino ^a   Ramos, Maria João ^a  

^a Campus Universitário de Santiago   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Docking algorithms; Docking software; Flexible docking; Protein ligand interactions; Scoring functions

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; PROTEIN; RECEPTOR PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; COMPUTER PROGRAM; LIGAND BINDING; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; RECEPTOR BINDING; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS;

ALGORITHMS; BINDING SITES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; LIGANDS; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS; SOFTWARE; WATER;

EID: 33748276474     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.21082     Document Type: Review

References (125)

1. Kuntz ID, Blaney JM, Oatley SJ, Langridge R, Ferrin TE. A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol 1982;161:269-288.
2. Kitchen DB, Decornez H, Furr JR, Bajorath J. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004;3:935-948.
3. Muegge I, Rarey M. Small molecule docking and scoring. Rev Comput Chem 2001;17:1-60.
4. Teague SJ. Implications of protein flexibility for drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003;2:527-541.
5. Carlson HA. Protein flexibility and drug design: how to hit a moving target. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2002;6:447-452.
6. Carlson HA. Protein flexibility is an important component of structure-based drug discovery. Curr Pharm Des 2002;8:1571-1578.
7. Bernstein FC, Koetzle TF, Williams GJB, Meyer EF, Brice MD, Rodgers JR, Kennard O, Shimanouchi T, Tasumi M. Protein Data Bank-computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures. J Mol Biol 1977;112:535-542.
8. van Dijk ADJ, Boelens R, Bonvin AMJJ. Data-driven docking for the study of biomolecular complexes. FEBS J 2005;272:293-312.
9. Schulz-Gasch T, Stahl M. Binding site characteristics in structure-based virtual screening: evaluation of current docking tools. J Mol Model 2003;9:47-57.
10. 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.
11. Clark RD, Strizhev A, Leonard JM, Blake JF, Matthew JB. Consensus scoring for ligand/protein interactions. J Mol Graph Model 2002;20:281-295.
12. Stahl M, Rarey M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J Med Chem 2001;44:1035-1042.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Bohm HJ. The computer program LUDI: a new method for the de novo design of enzyme inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1992;6:61-78.
16. 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.
17. Ewing TJA, Kuntz ID. Critical evaluation of search algorithms for automated molecular docking and database screening. J Comput Chem 1997;18:1175-1189.
18. Mizutani MY, Tomioka N, Itai A. Rational automatic search method for stable docking models of protein and ligand. J Mol Biol 1994;243:310-326.
19. Welch W, Ruppert J, Jain AN. Hammerhead: fast, fully automated docking of flexible ligands to protein binding sites. Chem Biol 1996;3:449-462.
20. Miller MD, Kearsley SK, Underwood DJ, Sheridan RP. FLOG: a system to select "quasi-flexible" ligands complementary to a receptor of known three-dimensional structure. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1994;8:153-174.
21. Taylor RD, Jewsbury PJ, Essex JW. A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2002;16:151-166.
22. Trosset JY, Scheraga HA. Prodock: software package for protein modeling and docking. J Comput Chem 1999;20:412-427.
23. Abagyan R, Totrov M, Kuznetzov D. 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.
24. Liu M, Wang S. MCDOCK: a Monte Carlo simulation approach to the molecular docking problem. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1999;13: 435-451.
25. Hart TN, Read RJ. A multiple-start Monte Carlo docking method. Proteins 1992;13:206-222.
26. McMartin C, Bohacek RS. QXP: powerful, rapid computer algorithms for structure-based drug design. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1997;11:333-344.
27. Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC. Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation. J Mol Biol 1995;245:43-53.
28. 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.
29. 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 1998;19:1639-1662.
30. Clark KP. Flexible ligand docking without parameter adjustment across four ligand-receptor complexes. J Comput Chem 1995;16:1210-1226.
31. Taylor JS, Burnett RM. DARWIN: a program for docking flexible molecules. Proteins 2000;41:173-191.
32. Baxter CA, Murray CW, Clark DE, Westhead DR, Eldridge MD. Flexible docking using Tabu search and an empirical estimate of binding affinity. Proteins 1998;33:367-382.
33. Murray CW, Baxter CA, Frenkel AD. 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.
34. Norberg J, Nilsson L. Advances in biomolecular simulations: methodology and recent applications. Q Rev Biophys 2003;36:257-306.
35. Erickson JA, Jalaie M, Robertson DH, Lewis RA, Vieth M. Lessons in molecular recognition: the effects of ligand and protein flexibility in molecular docking accuracy. J Med Chem 2004;47:45-55.
36. Osterberg F, Morris GM, Sanner MF, Olson AJ, Goodsell DS. Automated docking to multiple target structures: incorportation of protein mobility and structural water heterogeneity in AutoDock. Proteins 2002;46:34-40.
37. Dixon JS, Oshiro CM. Flexible ligand docking using a genetic algorithm. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1995;9:113-130.
38. Desmet J, Maeyer MD, Hazes B, Lasters I. The dead end eliminatino theorem and its use in protein side-chain positioning. Nature 1992;356:539-542.
39. Leach AR. Ligand docking to proteins with discrete side-chain flexibility. J Mol Biol 1994;235:345-356.
40. Knegtel RMA, Kuntz ID, Oshiro CM. Molecular docking to ensembles of protein structures. J Mol Biol 1997;266:424-440.
41. Apostolakis J, Pluckthun A, Caflisch A. Docking small ligands in flexible binding sites. J Comput Chem 1998;19:21-37.
42. Pak YS, Wang S. Application of a molecular dynamics simulation method with a generalized effective potential to the flexible molecular docking problems. J Phys Chem B 2000;104:354-359.
43. Schnecke V, Swanson CA, Getzoff ED, Tainer JA, Kuhn LA. Screening a peptidyl database for potential ligands to proteins with side-chain flexibility. Proteins 1998;33:74-87.
44. Schaffer L, Verkhivker GM. Predicting structural effects in HIV-1 protease mutant complexes with flexible ligand docking and protein side-chain optimization. Proteins 1998;33:295-310.
45. Barril X, Morley SD. Unveiling the full potential of flexible receptor docking using multiple crystallographic structures. J Med Chem 2005;48:4432-4443.
46. Claussen H, Buning C, Rarey M, Lengauer T. FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations. J Mol Biol 2001;308:377-395.
47. Cavasotto CN, Kovacs JA, Abagyan RA. Representing receptor flexibility in ligand docking through relevant normal modes. J Am Chem Soc 2005;127:9632-9640.
48. Kramer B, Rarey M, Lengauer T. Evaluation of the FlexX incremental construction algorithm for protein-ligand docking. Proteins 1999;37:228-241.
49. Verdonk ML, Cole JC, Hartshorn MJ, Murray CW, Taylor RD. Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins 2003;52: 609-623.
50. Weiner PK, Kollman PA. AMBER-assisted model building with energy refinement-a general program for modeling molecules and their interactions. J Comput Chem 1981;2:287-303.
51. Weiner SJ, Kollman PA, Case DA, Singh UC, Ohio C, Alagona G, Profeta S, Weiner P. A new force-field for molecular mechanical simulation of nucleic-acids and proteins. J Am Chem Soc 1984;106: 765-784.
52. Weiner SJ, Kollman PA, Nguyen DT, Case DA. An all-atom force field for simulations of protein and nucleic acids. J Comput Chem 1986;7:230-252.
53. Nilsson L, Karplus M. Empirical energy functions for energy minimization and dynamics of nucleic acids. J Comput Chem 1986;7:591-616.
54. Brooks BR, Bruccoleri RE, Olafson BD, States DJ, Swaminathan S, Karplus M. CHARMM-a programm for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J Comput Chem 1983;4:187-217.
55. van Gunsteren WF, Berendsen HC. Computer simulations of molecular dynamics: methodology, applications, and perpectives in chemistry. Angew Chem Int Ed 1990;29:992-1023.
56. Jorgensen WL, Tirado-Rives J. The OPLS [optimized potentials for liquid simulations] potential functions for proteins, energy minimizations for crystals of cyclic peptides and crambin. J Am Chem Soc 1988;110:1657-1666.
57. Bohm HJ. Prediction of binding constants of protein ligands: a fast method for the polarization of hits obtained from the de novo design on 3D database search programs. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1998;12:309-323.
58. Bohm HJ. The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1994;8:243-256.
59. 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.
60. Tao P, Lai L. Protein ligand docking based on empirical method for binding affinity estimation. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2001;15: 429-446.
61. Wang R, Liu D, Lai L, Tang Y. SCORE: a new empirical method for estimating the binding affinity of a protein-ligand complex. J Mol Model 1998;4:379-394.
62. Rognan D, Lauemoller SL, Holm A, Buus S, Tschinle V. Predicting binding affinities of protein ligands from three-dimensional models: application to peptide binding to class I major histocompatibility proteins. J Med Chem 1999;42:4650-4658.
63. Wang R, Lai L, Wang S. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2002;16:11-26.
64. Muegge I, Martin YC. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. J Med Chem 1999;42:791-804.
65. Muegge I. Effect of ligand volume correction on PMF scoring. J Comput Chem 2001;22:418-425.
66. Muegge I. A knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: probing the reference state. Perspect Drug Discov Des 2000;20:99-114.
67. Gohlke H, Hendlich M, Klebe G. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol 2000;295: 337-356.
68. Velec HF, Gohlke H, Klebe G. DrugScore (CSD)-knowledge-based scoring function derived from small molecule crystal data with superior recognition rate of near-native ligand poses and better affinity prediction. J Med Chem 2005;48:6296-6303.
69. DeWhitte RS, Shakhnovich EI. SMoG: de novo design method based on simple, fast, and accurate free energy estimates. 1. Methodology and supporting evidence. J Am Chem Soc 1996;118: 11733-11744.
70. Terp GE, Johansen BE, Christensen IT, Jorgensen FS. A new concept for multidimensional selection of ligand conformations (MultiSelect) and multidimensional scoring (MultiScore) of protein-ligand binding affinities. J Med Chem 2001;44:2333-2343.
71. 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.
72. Westhead DR, Clark DE, Murray CW. A comparison of heuristic search algorithms for molecular docking. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1997;11:209-228.
73. Bursulaya BD, Totrov M, Abagyan R, Brooks CL III. Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking. J Comp Aided Mol Des 2003;17:755-763.
74. 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.
75. Lam PYS, Jadhav PK, Eyermann CJ, Hodge CN, Ru Y, Bacheler LT, Meek JL, Otto MJ, Rayner MM, Wong YN, Chang CH, Weber PC, Jackson DA, Sharpe TR, Erickson-Viitanen S. The rational design of potent, bioavailable, nonpeptide cyclic ureas as HIV protease inhibitors. Science 1994;263:380-384.
76. Dean PM, Poornima CS. Hydration in drug design. 1. Multiple hydrogen-bonding features of water molecules in mediating protein-ligand interactions. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1995;9:500-512.
77. de Graaf C, Pospisil P, Pos W, Folkers G, Vermeulen NP. Binding mode prediction of cytochrome p450 and thymidine kinase protein-ligand complexes by consideration of water and rescoring in automated docking. J Med Chem 2005;48:2308-2318.
78. Verdonk ML, Chessari G, Cole JC, Hartshorn MJ, Murray CW, Nissink JW, Taylor RD, Taylor R. Modeling water molecules in protein-ligand docking using GOLD. J Med Chem 2005;48:6504-6515.
79. Cruickshank DWJ. Remarks about protein structure precision. Acta Crystallogr Sect D-Biol Crystallogr 1999;55:583-601.
80. Ghosh A, Rapp CS, Friesner RA. A generalized Born model based on surface integral formulation. J Phys Chem B 1998;102:10983-10990.
81. Still WC, Tempczyk A, Hawley RC, Hendrickson T. Semianalytical treatment of solvation for molecular mechanics and dynamics. J Am Chem Soc 1990;112:6127-6129.
82. Sitkoff DF, Sharp KA, Honig B. Accurate calculation of hydration free energies using macroscopic continuum models. J Phys Chem 1994;98:1978-1988.
83. Taylor RD, Jewsbury PJ, Essex JW. FDS: Flexible ligand and receptor docking with a continuum solvent model and soft-core energy function. J Comput Chem 2003;24:1637-1656.
84. Cole JC, Murray CW, Nissink JWM, Taylor RD, Taylor R. Comparing protein-ligand docking programs is difficult. Proteins 2005;60:325-332.
85. Venkatachalam CM, Jiang X, Oldfield T, Waldman M. LigandFit: a novel method for the shape directed rapid docking of ligands to protein active-sites. J Mol Graph Model 2003;2003:289-307.
86. McGann MR, Almond HR, Nicholls A, Grant JA, Brown FK. Gaussian docking functions. Biopolymers 2003;68:76-90.
87. Jain AN. Surflex: fully automated flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J Med Chem 2003;46:499-511.
88. Zavodszky MI, Sanschagrin PC, Korde RS, Kuhn LA. Distilling the essential features of a protein surface for improving protein-ligand docking, scoring, and virtual screening. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2002;16:883-902.
89. Paul N, Rognan D. ConsDock: A new program for the consensus analysis of protein-ligand interactions. Proteins 2002;47:521-533.
90. Jackson RM. Q-fit: a probabilistic method for docking molecular fragments by sampling a low energy conformational space. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2002;16:43-57.
91. Pang YP, Perola E, Xu K, Prendergast FG. EUDOC: a computer program for identification of drug interaction sites in macromolecules and drug leads from chemical databases. J Comput Chem 2001;22:1750-1771.
92. Diller DJ, Merz KM Jr. High throughput docking for library design and library prioritization. Proteins 2001;43:113-124.
93. David L, Luo R, Gilson MK. Ligand-receptor docking with the Mining Minima Optimizer. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2001;15:157-171.
94. Totrov M, Abagyan R. Flexible protein-ligand docking by global energy optimization in internal coordinates. Proteins 1997;1:215-220.
95. Gehlaar DK, Verkhivker GM, Rejto PA, Sherman CJ, Fogel DB, Fogel LH, Freer ST. Molecular recognition of inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: conformationally flexible docking evolutionary programming. Chem Biol 1995;2:317-324.
96. 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 2001;15:411-428.
97. Chen H, Lyne PD, Giordanetto F, Lovell T, Li J. On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors. J Chem Inf Model 2006;46:401-415.
98. Wang GT, Wang X, Wang W, Hasvold LA, Sullivan G, Hutchins CW, O'Conner S, Gentiles R, Sowin T, Cohen J, Gu WZ, Zhang H, Rosenberg SH, Sham HL. Design and synthesis of o-trifluoromethylbiphenyl substituted 2-amino-nicotinonitriles as inhibitors of farnesyltransferase. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2005;15:153-158.
99. Pearlman DA, Case DA, Caldwell JW, Ross WS, Cheatham TE III, DeBolt S, Fergunson D, Seibel G, Kollman P. AMBER, a package of computer programs for applying molecular mechanics, normal mode analysis, molecular dynamics and free energy calculations to simulate the structural and energetic properties of molecules. Comp Phys Commun 1995;91:1-41.
100. Muegge I, Martin YC, Hajduk PJ, Fesik SW. Evaluation of PMF scoring in docking weak ligands to the FK506 binding protein. J Med Chem 1999;42:2498-2503.
101. Buzko OV, Bishop AC, Shokat KM. Modified AutoDock for accurate docking of protein kinase inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2002;16:113-127.
102. Doman TN, McGovern SL, WItherbee BJ, Kasten TP, Kurumbail R, Stallings WC, Connolly DT, Shoichet BK. Molecular docking and high-throughput screening for novel inhibitors of protein tyrosine phosphatase-1B. J Med Chem 2002;45:2213-2221.
103. Keseru GM. A virtual high throughput screen for high affinity cytochrome P450cam substrates: implications for in silico prediction of drug metabolism. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2001;15:649-657.
104. Goodsell DS, Olson AJ. Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing. Proteins 1990;8:195-202.
105. Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Huey R, Olson AJ. Distributed automated docking of flexible ligands to proteins: parallel applications of AutoDock 2.4. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1996;10:293-304.
106. Klebe G, Mietzner TJ. A fast and efficient method to generate biologically relevant conformations. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1994;8:583-606.
107. Ponder JW, Richards FM. An efficient Newton-like method for molecular mechanics energy minimization of large molecules. J Comput Chem 1987;8:1016-1024.
108. Abagyan R, Totrov M. Biased probability Monte-Carlo conformational searches and electrostatic calculations for peptides and proteins. J Mol Biol 1994;235:983-1002.
109. Zou XQ, Sun YX, Kuntz ID. Inclusion of solvation in ligand binding free energy calculations using the generalized-born model. J Am Chem Soc 1999;121:8033-8043.
110. Vieth M, Cummins DJ. DoMCoSAE: a novel approach for establishing the docking mode that is consistent with the structure-activity relationship. Application to HIV-1 protease inhibitors and VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. J Med Chem 2000;43:3020-3032.
111. Vieth M, Hirst JD, Dominy BN, Daigler H, Brooks III CL. Assessing search strategies for flexible docking. J Comput Chem 1998;19:1623-1631.
112. Vieth M, Hirst JD, Kolinski A, Brooks III CL. Assessing energy functions for flexible ligand docking. J Comput Chem 1998;19: 1612-1622.
113. Wu G, Robertson DH, Brooks III CL, Vieth M. A detailed analysis of grid-based molecular docking. A case study of CDOCKER-a CHARMM based MD docking algorithm. J Comput Chem 2003; 47:45-55.
114. Tomasselli A, Heinrikson RL. Targeting the HIV-1 protease in AIDS therapy: a current clinical perspective. Biochim Biophys Acta 2000;1477:189-214.
115. 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.
116. Meagher KL, Carlson HA. Incorporating protein flexibility in structure-based drug discovery: using HIV-1 protease as a test case. J Am Chem Soc 2004;126:13276-13281.
117. Radestock S, Bohm M, Gohlke H. Improving binding mode predictions by docking into protein-specifically adapted potential fields. J Med Chem 2005;48:5466-5479.
118. Keizers PH, de Graaf C, de Kanter FJ, Oostenbrink C, Feenstra KA, Commandeur JN, Vermeulen NP. Metabolic regio- and stereoselectivity of cytochrome P450 2D6 towards 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-alkylamphetamines: in silico predictions and experimental validation. J Med Chem 2005;48:6117-6127.
119. Lindahl E, Hess B, van der Spoel D. GROMACS 3.0: a package for molecular simulation and trajectory analysis. J Mol Model 2001;7:306-317.
120. Perola E, Xu K, Kollmeyer TM, Kaufmann SH, Prendergast FG, Pang YP. Successful virtual screening of a chemical database for farnesyltransferase inhibitor leads. J Med Chem 2000;43:401-408.
121. Gabb HA, Jackson RM, Sternberg MJ. Modelling protein docking using shape complementarity, electrostatics and biochemical information. J Mol Biol 1997;272:106-120.
122. Sobolev V, Wade RC, Vriend G, Edelman M. Molecular docking using surface complementarity. Proteins 1996;25:120-129.
123. Burkhard P, Taylor P, Walkinshaw MD. An example of a protein ligand found by database mining: description of the docking method and its verification by a 2.3 A X-ray structure of a thrombin-ligand complex. J Mol Biol 1998;277:449-466.
124. Hou T, Wang J, Chen L, Xu X. Automated docking of peptides and proteins by using a genetic algorithm combined with a tabu search. Protein Eng 1999;12:639-647.
125. Jiang F, Kim SH. "Soft docking": matching of molecular surface cubes. J Mol Biol 1991;219:79-102.