The Challenges of Making Useful Protein-Ligand Free Energy Predictions for Drug Discovery

Computer Applications in Pharmaceutical Research and Development

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 321-351

  Shimada, Jun ^a  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

"touch button" predictions and end user expert knowledge; Protxsein ligand free energy predictions; Speed, transferability, accuracy, interpretability

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548323273     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/0470037237.ch14     Document Type: Chapter

References (79)

1. Mervis J. Productivity counts-But the definition is key. Science 2005;309:726-7.
2. Dickson M, Gagnon JP. Key factors in the rising cost of new drug discovery and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004;3:417-29.
3. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003;22:151-85.
4. Ma P, Zemmel R. Value of novelty? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002;1:571-2.
5. Butcher EC. Can cell systems biology rescue drug discovery? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2005;4:461-7.
6. Couzin J. The brains behind blockbusters. Science 2005;309:728-30.
7. Lombardino JG, Lowe JA. The role of the medicinal chemist in drug dis- covery-then and now. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004;3:853-62.
8. Bleicher KH, Bohm HJ, Muller K, Alanine AI. Hit and lead generation: beyond high-throughput screening. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003;2:369-78.
9. DiMasi JA. Risks in new drug development: approval success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001;69:297-307.
10. Kuntz ID. Structure-based strategies for drug design and discovery. Science 1992;257:1078-82.
11. Honma T. Recent advances in de novo design strategy for practical lead identification. Med Res Rev 2003;23:606-32.
12. Jorgensen WL. The many roles of computation in drug discovery. Science 2004;303:1813-8.
13. Walters WP, Stahl MT, Murcko MA. Virtual screening-an overview. Drug Discov Today 1998;3:160-78.
14. 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;3:935-49.
15. Ferrara P, Gohlke H, Price DJ, Klebe G, Brooks CL. Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. J Med Chem 2004;47:3032-47.
16. Grzybowski BA, Ishchenko AV, Shimada J, Shakhnovich EI. From knowledgebased potentials to combinatorial lead design in silico. Acc Chem Res 2002;35:261-9.
17. Gohlke H, Klebe G. Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. Angew Chem Int Edit 2002;41:2645-76.
18. Kollman P. Free-energy calculations-applications to chemical and biochemical phenomena. Chem Rev 1993;93:2395-417.
19. Ekins S, De Groot MJ, Jones JP. Pharmacophore and three-dimensional quantitative structure activity relationship methods for modeling cytochrome P450 active sites. Drug Metab Dispos 2001;29:936-44.
20. Bohm HJ. The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein ligand complex of known 3-dimensional structure. J Comput Aid Mol Des 1994;8:243-56.
21. Ajay, Murcko MA. Computational methods to predict binding free energy in ligand-receptor complexes. J Med Chem 1995;38:4953-67.
22. Raha K, Merz KM. Large-scale validation of a quantum mechanics based scoring function: predicting the binding affinity and the binding mode of a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes. J Med Chem 2005;48:4558-75.
23. Brooks CL, Karplus M, Pettitt BM. Proteins: a theoretical perspective of dynamics, structure, and thermodynamics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1988.
24. Cristianini N, Shawe-Taylor J. An introduction to support vector machines and other kernel-based learning methods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
25. Datta S, Grant DJW. Crystal structures of drugs: advances in determination, prediction and engineering. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004;3:42-57.
26. Wang R, Fang X, Lu Y, Wang S. The PDBbind database: collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. J Med Chem 2004;47:2977-80.
27. Wang R, Fang X, Lu Y, Yang CY, Wang S. The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates. J Med Chem 2005;48:4111-9.
28. Vieth M, Siegel MG, Higgs RE, Watson IA, Robertson DH, Savin KA, et al. Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. J Med Chem 2004;47:224-32.
29. Shimada J, Ishchenko AV, Shakhnovich EI. Analysis of knowledge-based proteinligand potentials using a self-consistent method. Protein Sci 2000;9:765-75.
30. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, et al. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res 2000;28:235-42.
31. Roche O, Kiyama R, Brooks CL 3rd. Ligand-protein database: linking proteinligand complex structures to binding data. J Med Chem 2001;44:3592-8.
32. Newman MEJ, Barkema GT. Monte Carlo methods in statistical physics. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1999.
33. Finkelstein AV, Badretdinov A, Gutin AM. Why do protein architectures have Boltzmann-like statistics? Proteins 1995;23:142-50.
34. Finkelstein AV, Gutin AM, Badretdinov AY. Perfect temperature for protein structure prediction and folding. Proteins 1995;23:151-62.
35. Godzik A, Kolinski A, Skolnick J. Are proteins ideal mixtures of amino acids? Analysis of energy parameter sets. Protein Sci 1995;4:2107-17.
36. Jeffrey GA, Saenger W. Hydrogen bonding in biological structures. Berlin:Springer-Verlag, 1991.
37. Tanford C. The hydrophobic effect: formation of micelles and biological membranes. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1980.
38. McQuarrie DA. Statistical mechanics. New York: Harper & Row, 1975.
39. Chaikin PM, Lubensky TC. Principles of condensed matter physics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1995.
40. Fersht A. Structure and mechanism in protein science: a guide to enzyme catalysis and protein folding. New York: W.H. Freeman, 1999.
41. Chandler D. Interfaces and the driving force of hydrophobic assembly. Nature 2005;437:640-7.
42. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman JH. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. New York: Springer, 2001.
43. Vapnik VN. Statistical learning theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
44. Berriz GF, Shakhnovich EI. Characterization of the folding kinetics of a threehelix bundle protein via a minimalist Langevin model. J Mol Biol 2001;310:673-85.
45. Brown S, Fawzi NJ, Head-Gordon T. Coarse-grained sequences for protein folding and design. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003;100:10712-7.
46. Clementi C, Nymeyer H, Onuchic JN. Topological and energetic factors: what determines the structural details of the transition state ensemble and "en-route" intermediates for protein folding? An investigation for small globular proteins. J Mol Biol 2000;298:937-53.
47. Dokholyan NV, Buldyrev SV, Stanley HE, Shakhnovich EI. Discrete molecular dynamics studies of the folding of a protein-like model. Fold Des 1998;3:577-87.
48. Ejtehadi MR, Avall SP, Plotkin SS. Three-body interactions improve the prediction of rate and mechanism in protein folding models. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004;101:15088-93.
49. Irback A, Peterson C, Potthast F, Sommelius O. Local interactions and protein folding: A three-dimensional off-lattice approach. J Chem Phys 1997;107:273-82.
50. Tobi D, Elber R. Distance-dependent, pair potential for protein folding: results from linear optimization. Proteins 2000;41:40-6.
51. Vendruscolo M, Domany E. Pairwise contact potentials are unsuitable for protein folding. J Chem Phys 1998;109:11101-8.
52. Favrin G, Irback A, Wallin S. Sequence-based study of two related proteins with different folding behaviors. Proteins 2004;54:8-12.
53. Irback A, Sjunnesson F. Folding thermodynamics of three beta-sheet peptides: a model study. Proteins 2004;56:110-6.
54. Irback A, Mohanty S. Folding thermodynamics of peptides. Biophys J 2005;88:1560-9.
55. Krieger E, Darden T, Nabuurs SB, Finkelstein A, Vriend G. Making optimal use of empirical energy functions: force-field parameterization in crystal space. Proteins 2004;57:678-83.
56. Shimada J, Kussell EL, Shakhnovich EI. The folding thermodynamics and kinetics of crambin using an all-atom Monte Carlo simulation. J Mol Biol 2001;308:79-95.
57. Shimada J, Shakhnovich EI. The ensemble folding kinetics of protein G from an all-atom Monte Carlo simulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:11175-80.
58. Gsponer J, Caflisch A. Molecular dynamics simulations of protein folding from the transition state. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:6719-24.
59. Beck DAC, Daggett V. Methods for molecular dynamics simulations of protein folding/unfolding in solution. Methods 2004;34:112-20.
60. Karplus M, Kuriyan J. Molecular dynamics and protein function. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005;102:6679-85.
61. Jaramillo A, Wodak SJ. Computational protein design is a challenge for implicit solvation models. Biophys J 2005;88:156-71.
62. Salvi G, De Los Rios P. Effective interactions cannot replace solvent effects in a lattice model of proteins. Phys Rev Lett 2003;91.
63. Simons KT, Kooperberg C, Huang E, Baker D. Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions. J Mol Biol 1997;268:209-25.
64. Harbury PB, Plecs JJ, Tidor B, Alber T, Kim PS. High-resolution protein design with backbone freedom. Science 1998;282:1462-7.
65. Bonneau R, Tsai J, Ruczinski I, Chivian D, Rohl C, Strauss CEM, et al. Rosetta in CASP4: Progress in ab initio protein structure prediction. Proteins 2001:119-26.
66. Bolon DN, Mayo SL. Enzyme-like proteins by computational design. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001;98:14274-9.
67. Kuhlman B, Dantas G, Ireton GC, Varani G, Stoddard BL, Baker D. Design of a novel globular protein fold with atomic-level accuracy. Science 2003;302:1364-8.
68. Dantas G, Kuhlman B, Callender D, Wong M, Baker D. A large scale test of computational protein design: folding and stability of nine completely redesigned globular proteins. J Mol Biol 2003;332:449-60.
69. Bradley P, Chivian D, Meiler J, Misura KMS, Rohl CA, Schief WR, et al. Rosetta predictions in CASP5: successes, failures, and prospects for complete automation. Proteins 2003;53:457-68.
70. Plecs JJ, Harbury PB, Kim PS, Alber T. Structural test of the parameterizedbackbone method for protein design. J Mol Biol 2004;342:289-97.
71. Korkegian A, Black ME, Baker D, Stoddard BL. Computational thermostabilization of an enzyme. Science 2005;308:857-60.
72. Liu HY, Elstner M, Kaxiras E, Frauenheim T, Hermans J, Yang WT. Quantum mechanics simulation of protein dynamics on long timescale. Proteins 2001;44:484-9.
73. Kussell E, Shimada J, Shakhnovich EI. A structure-based method for derivation of all-atom potentials for protein folding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:5343-8.
74. Chhajer M, Crippen GM. Toward correct protein folding potentials. J Biol Phys 2004;30:171-85.
75. Fujitsuka Y, Takada S, Luthey-Schulten ZA, Wolynes PG. Optimizing physical energy functions for protein folding. Proteins 2004;54:88-103.
76. Liang SD, Grishin NV. Effective scoring function for protein sequence design. Proteins 2004;54:271-81.
77. Chen WW, Shakhnovich EI. Lessons from the design of a novel atomic potential for protein folding. Protein Sci 2005;14:1741-52.
78. Mirny LA, Shakhnovich EI. How to derive a protein folding potential? A new approach to an old problem. J Mol Biol 1996;264:1164-79.
79. Vendruscolo M, Najmanovich R, Domany E. Can a pairwise contact potential stabilize native protein folds against decoys obtained by threading? Proteins 2000;38:134-48.