Structure-based virtual ligand screening with LigandFit: Pose prediction and enrichment of compound collections

Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics

Volumn 68, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 712-725

  Montes, Matthieu ^a   Miteva, Maria A ^a   Villoutreix, Bruno O ^a  

^a INSERM   (France)

Author keywords

Docking; Focused library; LigandFit; Scoring; Virtual ligand screening

Indexed keywords

BLOOD CLOTTING FACTOR 7A; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; LIGAND; PROTEIN; PROTEOLIPID PROTEIN; SIALIDASE; THYMIDINE KINASE;

ARTICLE; BINDING SITE; CALCULATION; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DATA BASE; DRUG SCREENING; LIGAND BINDING; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; SCORING SYSTEM; SEARCH ENGINE; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; VIRTUAL LIGAND SCREENING;

BINDING SITES; LIGANDS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; ROC CURVE;

EID: 34447524011     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.21405     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003;22: 151-185.
2. Drews J. Drug discovery: a historical perspective. Science 2000;287:1960-1964.
3. Broder S, Venter JC. Whole genomes: the foundation of new biology and medicine. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2000;11:581-585.
4. Hajduk PJ, Huth JR, Tse C. Predicting protein druggability. Drug Discov Today 2005;10:1675-1682.
5. Whitty A, Kumaravel G. Between a rock and a hard place? Nat Chem Biol 2006;2:112-118.
6. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 2000;28:235-242.
7. Ertl P. Cheminformatics analysis of organic substituents: identification of the most common substituents, calculation of substituent properties, and automatic identification of drug-like bioisosteric groups. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003;43:374-380.
8. Macarron R. Critical review of the role of HTS in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 2006;11:277-279.
9. Mestres J. Virtual screening: a real screening complement to high-throughput screening. Biochem Soc Trans 2002;30:797-799.
10. Bajorath J. Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002;1:882-894.
11. Feng BY, Shelat A, Doman TN, Guy RK, Shoichet BK. High-throughput assays for promiscuous inhibitors. Nat Chem Biol 2005;1:146-148.
12. Abagyan R, Totrov M. High-throughput docking for lead generation. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2001;5:375-382.
13. Kubinyi H. Drug research: myths, hype and reality. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003;2:665-668.
14. Bleicher KH, Bohm HJ, Muller K, Alanine AI. Hit and lead generation: beyond high-throughput screening. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003;2:369-378.
15. Jorgensen WL. The many roles of computation in drug discovery. Science 2004;303:1813-1818.
16. Shoichet BK. Virtual screening of chemical libraries. Nature 2004;432:862-865.
17. Jain AN. Virtual screening in lead discovery and optimization. Curr Opin Drug Discov Dev 2004;7:396-403.
18. Oprea TI, Matter H. Integrating virtual screening in lead discovery. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2004;8:349-358.
19. Stahura FL, Bajorath J. New methodologies for ligand-based virtual screening. Curr Pharm Des 2005;11:1189-1202.
20. Anderson AC. The process of structure-based drug design. Chem Biol 2003;10:787-797.
21. Davis AM, Teague SJ, Kleywegt GJ. Application and limitations of X-ray crystallographic data in structure-based ligand and drug design. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2003;42:2718-2736.
22. Alvarez JC. High-throughput docking as a source of novel drug leads. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2004;8:365-370.
23. Wang R, Fang X, Lu Y, Yang CY, Wang S. The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates. J Med Chem 2005;48:4111-4119.
24. 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;3:935-949.
25. Cole JC, Murray CW, Nissink JW, Taylor RD, Taylor R. Comparing protein-ligand docking programs is difficult. Proteins 2005;60:325-332.
26. Krovat EM, Steindl T, Langer T. Recent advances in docking and scoring. Curr Comput-Aided Drug Des 2005;1:93-102.
27. Knox AJ, Meegan MJ, Carta G, Lloyd DG. Considerations in compound database preparation - "hidden" impact on virtual screening results. J Chem Inf Model 2005;45:1908-1919.
28. Verdonk ML, Berdini V, Hartshorn MJ, Mooij WT, Murray CW, Taylor RD, Watson P. Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: avoiding artificial enrichment. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004;44: 793-806.
29. Bissantz C, Schalon C, Guba W, Stahl M. Focused library design in GPCR projects on the example of 5-HT(2c) agonists: comparison of structure-based virtual screening with ligand-based search methods. Proteins 2005;61:938-952.
30. Alvesalo JKO, Siiskonen A, Vainio MJ, Tammela PSM, Vuorela PM. Similarity based virtual screening: a tool for targeted library design. J Med Chem 2006;49:2353-2356.
31. Orry AJ, Abagyan R, Cavasotto CN. Structure-based development of target-specific compound libraries. Drug Discov Today 2006;11: 261-266.
32. Lipinski CA. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 2000;44:235-249.
33. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2001;46:3-26.
34. Nassar AE, Kamel AM, Clarimont C. Improving the decision-making process in structural modification of drug candidates: reducing toxicity. Drug Discov Today 2004;9:1055-1064.
35. Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng HY, Smith BR, Ward KW, Kopple KD. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J Med Chem 2002;45:2615-2623.
36. Vermeulen NP. Prediction of drug metabolism: the case of cytochrome P450 2D6. Curr Top Med Chem 2003;3:1227-1239.
37. Brooijmans N, Kuntz ID. Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 2003;32:335-373.
38. 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.
39. Kuntz ID. Structure-based strategies for drug design and discovery. Science 1992;257:1078-1082.
40. 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.
41. Jain AN. Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J Med Chem 2003; 46:499-511.
42. 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.
43. Goodsell DS, Morris GM, Olson AJ. Automated docking of flexible ligands: applications of AutoDock. J Mol Recognit 1996;9:1-5.
44. Abagyan R, Totrov M. Biased probability Monte Carlo conformational searches and electrostatic calculations for peptides and proteins. J Mol Biol 1994;235:983-1002.
45. 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;21:289-307.
46. Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, Halgren TA, Klicic JJ, Mainz DT, Repasky MP, Knoll EH, Shelley M, Perry JK, Shaw DE, Francis P, Shenkin PS. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. I. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 2004;47:1739-1749.
47. Halgren TA, Murphy RB, Friesner RA, Beard HS, Frye LL, Pollard WT, Banks JL. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. II. Enrichment factors in database screening. J Med Chem 2004;47:1750-1759.
48. Gehlhaar DK, Verkhivker GM, Rejto PA, Sherman CJ, Fogel DB, Fogel LJ, Freer ST. Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. Chem Biol 1995;2:317-324.
49. Krammer A, Kirchhoff PD, Jiang X, Venkatachalam CM, Waldman M. LigScore: a novel scoring function for predicting binding affinities. J Mol Graph Model 2005;23:395-407.
50. 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.
51. Brenk R, Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK. Here be dragons: docking and screening in an uncharted region of chemical space. J Biomol Screen 2005;10:667-674.
52. Mozziconacci JC, Arnoult E, Bernard P, Do QT, Marot C, Morin-Allory L. Optimization and validation of a docking-scoring protocol; application to virtual screening for COX-2 inhibitors. J Med Chem 2005;48:1055-1068.
53. Miteva MA, Lee WH, Montes MO, Villoutreix BO. Fast structure-based virtual ligand screening combining FRED, DOCK, and Surflex. J Med Chem 2005;48:6012-6022.
54. Wang J, Kang X, Kuntz ID, Kollman PA. Hierarchical database screenings for HIV-1 reverse transcriptase using a pharmacophore model, rigid docking, solvation docking, and MM-PB/SA. J Med Chem 2005;48:2432-2444.
55. Perola E. Minimizing false positives in kinase virtual screens. Proteins 2006;64:422-435.
56. Maiorov V, Sheridan RP. Enhanced virtual screening by combined use of two docking methods: getting the most on a limited budget. J Chem Inf Model 2005;45:1017-1023.
57. Wang R, Lu Y, Wang S. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J Med Chem 2003;46:2287-2303.
58. Feher M Consensus scoring for protein-ligand interactions. Drug Discov Today 11(9-10):421-428, 2006.
59. Good AC, Cheney DL. Analysis and optimization of structure-based virtual screening protocols. I. exploration of ligand conformational sampling techniques. J Mol Graph Model 2003;22:23-30.
60. Smith R, Hubbard RE, Gschwend DA, Leach AR, Good AC. Analysis and optimization of structure-based virtual screening protocols. III. New methods and old problems in scoring function design. J Mol Graph Model 2003;22:41-53.
61. Good AC, Cheney DL, Sitkoff DF, Tokarski JS, Stouch TR, Bassolino DA, Krystek SR, Li Y, Mason JS, Perkins TD. Analysis and optimization of structure-based virtual screening protocols. II. Examination of docked ligand orientation sampling methodology: mapping a pharmacophore for success. J Mol Graph Model 2003;22:31-40.
62. 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.
63. Krovat EM, Langer T. Impact of scoring functions on enrichment in docking-based virtual screening: an application study on renin inhibitors. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004;44:1123-1129.
64. Cozza G, Bonvini P, Zorzi E, Poletto G, Pagano MA, Sarno S, Donella-Deana A, Zagotto G, Rosolen A, Pinna LA, Meggio F, Moro S. Identification of ellagic acid as potent inhibitor of protein kinase CK2: a successful example of a virtual screening application. J Med Chem 2006;49:2363-2366.
65. Liu Z, Huang C, Fan K, Wei P, Chen H, Liu S, Pei J, Shi L, Li B, Yang K, Liu Y, Lai L. Virtual screening of novel noncovalent inhibitors for SARS-CoV 3C-like proteinase. J Chem Inf Model 2005;45: 10-17.
66. Forino M, Jung D, Easton JB, Houghton PJ, Pellecchia M. Virtual docking approaches to protein kinase B inhibition. J Med Chem 2005;48:2278-2281.
67. Vigers GP, Rizzi JP. Multiple active site corrections for docking and virtual screening. J Med Chem 2004;47:80-89.
68. Bursulaya BD, Totrov M, Abagyan R, Brooks CL, 3rd. Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2003;17:755-763.
69. Kontoyianni M, McClellan LM, Sokol GS. Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms. J Med Chem 2004;47:558-565.
70. Kontoyianni M, Sokol GS, McCIellan LM. Evaluation of library rank-ing efficacy in virtual screening. J Comput Chem 2005;26:11-22.
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. Perola E, Walters WP, Charifson PS. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins 2004;56:235-249.
73. 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.
74. Rockey WM, Elcock AH. Rapid computational identification of the targets of protein kinase inhibitors. J Med Chem 2005;48:4138-4152.
75. Mpamhanga CP, Chen B, McLay IM, Ormsby DL, Lindvall MK. Retrospective docking study of PDE4B ligands and an analysis of the behavior of selected scoring functions. J Chem Inf Model 2005;45:1061-1074.
76. Aparna V, Rambabu G, Panigrahi SK, Sarma JA, Desiraju GR. Virtual screening of 4-anilinoquinazoline analogues as EGFR kinase inhibitors: importance of hydrogen bonds in the evaluation of poses and scoring functions. J Chem Inf Model 2005;45:725-738.
77. Kroemer RT, Vulpetti A, McDonald JJ, Rohrer DC, Trosset JY, Giordanetto F, Cotesta S, McMartin C, Kihlen M, Stouten PF. Assessment of docking poses: interactions-based accuracy classification (IBAC) versus crystal structure deviations. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004;44:871-881.
78. Sussman F, de Lera AR. Ligand recognition by RAR and RXR receptors: binding and selectivity. J Med Chem 2005;48:6212-6219.
79. Warren GL, Andrews CW, Capelli A-M, Clarke B, LaLonde J, Lambert MH, Lindvall M, Nevins N, Semus SF, Senger S, Tedesco G, Wall ID, Woolven JM, Peishoff CE, Head MS. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J Med Chem 2006;49: 5912-5931.
80. Gouldson PR, Kidley NJ, Bywater RP, Psaroudakis G, Brooks HD, Diaz C, Shire D, Reynolds CA. Toward the active conformations of rhodopsin and the β2-adrenergic receptor. Proteins 2004;56:67-84.
81. Miteva MA, Violas S, Montes M, Gomez D, Tuffery P, Villoutreix BO. FAF-Drugs: free ADME/tox Filtering of compound collections. Nucleic Acids Res 2006;34:W738-W744.
82. McGann MR, Almond HR, Nicholls A, Grant JA, Brown FK. Gaussian docking functions. Biopolymers 2003;68:76-90.
83. Wang R, Gao Y, Lai L. Calculating partition coefficient by atom-additive method. Perspectives in Drug Discov Des 2000;19:47-66.
84. Triballeau N, Acher F, Brabet I, Pin JP, Bertrand HO. Virtual screening workflow development guided by the "receiver operating characteristic" curve approach. Application to high-throughput docking on metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 4. J Med Chem 2005;48:2534-2547.
85. Jain AN. Ligand-based structural hypotheses for virtual screening. J Med Chem 2004;47:947-961.
86. Bissantz C, Folkers G, Rognan D. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. I. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J Med Chem 2000;43:4759-4767.
87. Cummings MD, DesJarlais RL, Gibbs AC, Mohan V, Jaeger EP. Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. J Med Chem 2005;48:962-976.
88. Mpamhanga CP, Chen B, McLay IM, Willett P. Knowledge-based interaction fingerprint scoring: a simple method for improving the effectiveness of fast scoring functions. J Chem Inf Model 2006;46: 686-698.
89. Floriano WB, Vaidehi N, Zamanakos G, Goddard WA, III. HierVLS hierarchical docking protocol for virtual ligand screening of large-molecule databases. J Med Chem 2004;47:56-71.
90. Sun D, Chuaqui C, Deng Z, Bowes S, Chin D, Singh J, Cullen P, Hankins G, Lee W, Donnely J, Friedman J, Serene J. a kinase-focused compound collection: compilation and screening strategy. Chem Biol Drug Des 2006;67:385-394.