Novel, customizable scoring functions, parameterized using N-PLS, for structure-based drug discovery

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 85-91

  Catana, Cornel ^a   Stouten, Pieter F W ^b  

^a PFIZER INC   (United States)

^b NERVIANO MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; PROTEINS;

BINDING AFFINITY; SCORING FUNCTIONS; SILICO DOCKING; STRUCTURE BASED DRUG DISCOVERY;

MOLECULAR DYNAMICS;

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BIOLOGY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DRUG DESIGN; PROTEIN BINDING; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DRUG DESIGN; PROTEIN BINDING; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; SOFTWARE;

EID: 33846889763     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci600357t     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences - Protein Structure Initiative (NIGMS-PSI). http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Initiatives/PSI (accessed Sep 29, 2006).
2. Warren, G. L.; Andrews, W. C.; 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. 2006, 49, 5912-5931.
3. Murcko, M. A; Mark, A. Computational Methods to Predict Binding Free Energy in Ligand-Receptor Complexes, J. Med. Chem. 1995, 38, 4953-4967.
4. Tame, J. R. H. Scoring Functions: A View from the Bench. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1999, 13, 99-108.
5. Böhm, H. J. Prediction of Binding Constants of Protein Ligands: A Fast Method for the Prioritization of Hits Obtained from de Novo Design or 3D Database Search Programs. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1998, 12, 309-323.
6. (a) Morris, G. M.; Goodsell, D. S.; Halliday, R. S.; Huey, R.; Hart, W. E.; Olson, A. J. Automated Docking Using a Lamarckian Genetic Algorithm and an Empirical Binding Free Energy Function. J. Comput. Chem. 1998, 19, 1639-1662.
7. (b) Autodock, version 2.04. http://www.scripps.edu/mb/olson/doc/ autodock (accessed Sep 29, 2006).
8. Jones G.; Willet, 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.
9. Ewing, T. J. A.; Makino, S.; Skillman, A. G.; Kuntz, I. D. Dock 4.0: Search Strategies for Automated Molecular Docking of Flexible Molecule Databases. J. Comput.-Aided Mol Des. 2001, 15, 411-428.
10. Muegge, I.; Martin, Y. C. A General and Fast Scoring Function for Protein-Ligand Interactions: A Simplified Interaction Approach. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 791-804.
11. Gohlke, H; Hendlich, M; Klebe, G. Knowledge-Based Scoring Function to Predict Protein-Ligand Interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 2000, 295, 337-356.
12. Cerius2, version 4.6; Accelrys: San Diego, CA. http://www.accelrys.com/products/cerius2/cerius2products/listing.html (accessed Sep 29, 2006).
13. Gehlhaar, D. K.; Verkhivker, G. M.; Rejto, P. A.; Sherman, C. J.; Fogel, D. B.; Fogel, L. J.; Freer, S. T. Molecular Recognition of the Inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 Protease: Conformationally Flexible Docking by Evolutionary Programming. Chem. Biol. 1995, 2, 317-324.
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. Eldridge, M. D.; Murray, C. W.; Auton, T. R.; Paolini, G. V.; Mee, R. P. Empirical Scoring Functions: 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.
16. Baxter, C. A.; Murray, C. W.; Clark, D. E.; Westhead, D. R.; Eldridge, M. D. Flexible Docking Using Tabu Search and an Empirical Estimate of Binding Affinity. Proteins 1998, 33, 367-382.
17. 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.
18. Charifson, P. S.; Corkery, J. J.; Murcko, M. A.; Walters, W. P. 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.
19. Wang, R.; Lu, Yipin; Wang, S. Comparative Evaluation of 11 Scoring Functions for Molecular Docking. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 2287-2303.
20. Gohlke, H.; Klebe, G. Statistical Potentials and Scoring Functions Applied to Protein-Ligand Binding. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2001, 11, 231-235.
21. (a) McMartin, C.; Bohacek, R. S. QXP: Powerful, Rapid Computer Algorithms for Structure-Based Design. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1997, 11, 333-344.
22. (b) QXP_Flo+, version August 2002: Thistlesoft: Colebrook, CT.
23. Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics - Protein Data Bank. http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/ (accessed Sep 29, 2006).
24. PLS-Toolbox for Use with MATLAB. version 3.0: Eigenvector Research: Manson, WA, 2003.
25. MacroModel; Schrödinger: Portland, OR. http://www. schrodinger.com/ProductDescription.php?mID=6&sID=8 (accessed Sep 29, 2006).
26. Bro, R. Multiway Calibration - Multilinear PLS. J. Chemom. 1996, 10, 47-61.
27. Bro, R.; Smilde, A. K.; de Jong, S. On the Difference between Low Rank and Subspace Approximation: Improved Model for Multi-Linear PLS Regression. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2001, 58, 3-13.
28. Böhm, H. J. Prediction of Binding Constants of Protein Ligands: A Fast Method for the Prioritization of Hits Obtained from de Novo Design or 3D Database Search Programs. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1998, 12, 309-323.
29. Head, R. D.; Smythe, M. L; Oprea, T. I.; Waller, C. L.; Green, S. M.: Marshall, G. R. VALIDATE: A New Method for the Receptor-Based Prediction of Binding Affinities of Novel Ligands. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 3959-3969.
30. Eldridge, M. D.; Murray, C. W.; Auton, T. R.; Paolini, G. V.; Mee, R. P. 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. 1997, 11, 425-445.
31. Smith, R.; Hubbard, R. E.; Gschwend, D. A.; Leach, A. R.; Good, A. C. Analysis and Optimization of Structure-Based Virtual Screening Protocols. (3). New Methods and Old Problems in Scoring Function Design. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2003, 22, 41-53.
32. Wang, R.; Gao, Y.; Lai L. SCORE: A New Empirical Method for Estimating the Binding Affinity of a Protein-Ligand Complex. J. Mol. Model. 1998, 4, 379-394.
33. Krammer, A.; Kirchhoff, P. D.; Jiang, X.; Venkatachalam, C. M.; Waldman, M. LigScore: A Novel Scoring Function for Predicting Binding Affinities. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2005, 23, 395-407.
34. McMartin, C. QXP_Flo+ 200 Complex Training Set. Personal communication.
35. Giordanetto, F.; Cotesta, S.; Catana, C.; Trosset, J. Y.; Vulpetti, A.; Stouten, P. F. W.; Kroemer, R. T. Novel Scoring Functions Comprising QXP, SASA and Protein Side-Chain Entropy Terms. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 882-893.
36. Burges, C. J. C. A Tutorial on Support Vector Machines for Pattern Recognition. Data Min. Knowledge Discovery 1998, 2, 121-167.
37. Breiman, L. Random Forest. Machine Learning 2001, 45, 5-32.