Supervised scoring models with docked ligand conformations for structure-based virtual screening

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 47, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 1858-1867

  Teramoto, Reiji ^a   Fukunishi, Hiroaki ^a  

^a NEC CORPORATION   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BINDING ENERGY; CONFORMATIONS; DATABASE SYSTEMS; DRUG PRODUCTS; PROTEINS;

DOCKING PROGRAMS; ESTROGEN RECEPTORS (ER); VIRTUAL SCREENING;

LIGANDS;

DNA; LIGAND; PROTEIN; RNA; THEOPHYLLINE;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BASE PAIRING; CHEMISTRY; CONFORMATION; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EFFECT; KNOWLEDGE BASE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

ALGORITHMS; BASE PAIRING; DNA; DRUG DESIGN; KNOWLEDGE BASES; LIGANDS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; MOLECULAR CONFORMATION; PROTEINS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RNA; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; THEOPHYLLINE;

EID: 35248864434     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci700116z     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Kuntz, I. D.; Blaney, J. M.; Oatley, S. J.; Sheridan, R. P.; Langridge, R.; Ferrin, T. E. A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 1982, 161, 269-288.
2. Abagyan, R. A.; Totrov, M. M.; Kuznetsov, D. A. ICM: a new method for structure modeling and design: applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation. J. Comput. Chem. 1994, 15, 488-506.
3. Rarey, M.; Kramer, B.; Lengauer, T.; Klebe, G. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J. Mol. Biol. 1996, 267, 470-89.
4. Welch, W.; Ruppert, J.; Jain, A. N. Hammerhead: fast, fully automated docking of flexible ligands to protein binding sites. Chem. Biol. 1996, 3, 449-462.
5. Jones, G.; Wilett, 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.
6. Jain, A. N. Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 499-511.
7. 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.
8. Majeux, N.; Scarsi, M.; Apostolakis, J.; Caisch, A. Exhaustive docking of molecular fragments on protein binding sites with electrostatic salvation. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 1999, 37, 88-105.
9. Zou, X.; Sun, Y.; Kuntz, I. D. Inclusion of Solvation in Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculations Using the Generalized-Born Model. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 8033-8043.
10. De Witte, R.; Shakhnovich, E. 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.
11. Mitchell, J. B. O.; Laskowski, R. A.; Alexander, A.; Thornton, J. M. BLEEP-Poteintial of mean force describing protein-ligand interactions: I. Generating potential. J. Comput. Chem. 1999, 20, 1165-1176.
12. Muegge, I.; Martin, Y. C. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: A simplified potential approach. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 791-804.
13. Gohlke, H.; Hendlich, M.; Klebe, G. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 2000, 295, 337-356.
14. 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.
15. Perola, E.; Walters, W. P.; Charifson, P. S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins 2004, 57, 225-242.
16. Kontoyianni, M.; McClellan, L. M.; Sokol, G. S. Evaluation of docking performance: Comparative data on docking algorithms. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 56, 235-249.
17. Kroemer. R. T.; Vulpetti, A.; McDonald, J. J.; Rohrer, D. G.; Trosset, J. Y.; Giordanetto, F.; Cotesta, S.; McMartin, G.; 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.
18. Kontoyianni, M.; Sokol, G. S.; McClellan, L. M. Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening. J. Comput. Chem. 2005, 26, 11 -22.
19. 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. 2006, 49, 5912-5931.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Stahl, M.; Rarey, M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1035-1042.
23. Clark, R. D.; Strizhev, A.; Leonard, J. M.; Blake, J. F.; Matthew, J. B. Consensus scoring for ligand/protein interactions. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2002, 20, 281-295.
24. Wang, R.; Lu, Y.; Wang, S. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 2287-2303.
25. Jacobsson, M.; Liden, P.; Stjernschantz, E.; Bostrom, H.; Norinder, U. Improvement structure-based virtual screening by multivariate analysis of scoring data. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 5781-5789.
26. Verdonk, M. L.; Berdini, V.; Hartshorn, M. J.; Mooij. W. T. M.; Murray, G W.; Taylor, T. D.; Watson, P. Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: Avoiding artificial enrichment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 793-806.
27. Yang, J. M.; Chen, Y. F.; Shen, T. W.; Kristal, B. S.; Hsu, D. F. Consensus scoring criteria for improving enrichment in virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 1134-1146.
28. Camacho. C. J.; Vajda, S. Protein docking along smooth association pathways. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2001, 98, 10636-10641.
29. Teramoto, R.; Fukunishi, H. Supervised consensus scoring for docking and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 526-534.
30. Huang. N.; Schoichet, K. B.; Irwin, J. J. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6789-6801.
31. Pham, T. A.; Jain, A. N. Parameter estimation for scoring proteinligand interactions using negative training data. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 49, 5856-5868.
32. Li, H.; Li, C.; Gui, C.; Luo, X.; Chen, K.; Shen, J.; Wang, X.; Jiang, H. GAsDock: A new approcah for rapid flexible docking based on a improved multi-population genetic algorithm. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2004, 14, 4671-4676.
33. Yang, J. M.; Shen, T. W. A pharmacophore-based evolutionary approach for screening selective estrogen receptor modulators. Proteins 2005, 59, 205-220.
34. Schapira, M.; Abagyan, R.; Totrov, M. Nuclear hormone receptor targeted virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 3045-3059.
35. Schulz-Gasch, T.; Stahl, M. Binding site characteristics in structurebased virtual screening: Evaluation of current docking tools. J. Mol. Model. 2003, 9, 47-57.
36. McGovern, S. L.; Shoichet, B. K. Information decay in molecular docking screens against holo, apo, and modeled conformations of enzymes. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 2895-2907.
37. FlexSIS; Sybyl7.1J; BioSolveIT GmbH: Sankt Augustin, Germany, 2005.
38. Breiman, L. Random forests. Machine Learning 2001, 45, 5-32.
39. Svetnik, V.; Liaw, A.; Tong, C.; Culberson, C.; Sheridan, R.; Feuston, B. Random Forest: A classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2003, 43, 1947-1958.