Designing a ligand for pharmaceutical purposes

Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery

Volumn 3, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 579-590

  Bortolato, Andrea ^a   Moro, Stefano ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADOVA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Linear interaction energy method; Molecular docking; Rational drug design approaches; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; BINDING AFFINITY; CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER PREDICTION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG SCREENING; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LIGAND BINDING; MOLECULAR DOCKING; MOLECULAR MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN DATABASE; REVIEW;

EID: 44649147749     PISSN: 17460441     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1517/17460441.3.5.579     Document Type: Review

References (111)

1. Madari H, Jacobscum RS. An analysis of cytotoxic botanical formulations used in the traditional medicine of ancient persia as abortifacients. J Nat Prod 2004;67:1204-10
2. Bertucci F, Finetti P, Cervera N, et al. Gene expression profiling and clinical outcome in breast cancer. Omics 2006;10:429-43
3. Calvo KR, Liotta LA, Petricoin EF. Clinical proteomics: from biomarker discovery and cell signaling profiles to individualized personal therapy. Biosci Rep 2005;25:107-25
4. Blundell TL, Jhoti H, Abell C. High-throughput crystallography for lead discovery in drug design. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002;1:45-54
5. Jhoti H, Cleasby A, Verdonk M, et al. Fragment-based screening using X-ray crystallography and NMR spectroscopy. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2007;11:485-93
6. Watts A. Solid-state NMR in drug design and discovery for membrane-embedded targets. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2005;4:555-68
7. Fotiadis D, Jastrzebska B, Philippsen A, et al. Structure of the rhodopsin dimer: a working model for G-protein-caupled receptors. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2006;16:252-9
8. McCammon JA, Gelin BR, Karplus M. Dynamics of folded proteins. Nature 1977;267:585-90
9. Darner T, York D, Pedersen L. Particle Mesh Ewald-An N.LOG-(N). Method for Ewald sums in Large systems. J Chem Phys 1993;98:10089-92
10. Postma JPM, Berendsen HJC, Hook JR. Thermodynamics of cavity formation in water: a molecular dynamics study. Faraday Symp Chem Soc 1982;17:55-67
11. Klebe G. Virtual ligand screening: strategies, perspectives and limitations. Drug Discovery Today 2006;11:580-94
12. Tikhonova IG, Sum CS, Neumann S, et al. Discovery of novel agonists and antagonists of the Free Fatty Acid Receptor 1 (FFAR1) Using Virtual Screening. J Med Chem 2008: published online 15 January 2008, doi:10.1021/jm7012425
13. Cozza G, Bonvini P, Zorzi E, et al. Identification of ellagic acid as potent inhibitor of protein kinase CK2: a successful example of a virtual screening application. J Med Chem 2006;49:2363-6
14. Miteva MA, Lee WH, Montes MO, et al. Fast structure-based virtual ligand screening combining FRED, DOCK, and Surflex. J Med Chem 2005;48:6012-22
15. Couzin J. Cancer drugs. Smart weapons prove tough to design. Science 2002;298:522-5
16. Fishman MC, Porter JA. A new grammar for drug discovery. Nature 2005;437:491-3
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 Ed Engl 2002;41:2644-76
18. Sperandio O, Miteva MA, Delfaud F, et al. Receptor-based computational screening of compound databases: the main docking-scoring engines. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2006;7:369-93
19. 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
20. Shoichet BK. Virtual screening of chemical libraries. Nature 2004;432:862-5
21. Villoutreix BO, Renault N, Lagorce D, et al. Free resources to assist structure-based virtual ligand screening experiments. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2007;8:381-411
22. Ertl P, Jelfs S. Designing drugs on the internet? Free web tools and services supporting medicinal chemistry. Curr Top Med Chem 2007;7:1491-501
23. Sitzmann M, Filippov IV, Nicklaus MC. Internet resources integrating many small-molecule databases(1). SAR QSAR Environ Res 2008;19:1-9
24. Geronikaki A, Druzhilovsky D, Zakharov A, et al. Computer-aided prediction for medicinal chemistry via the Internet SAR QSAR Environ Res 2008;19:27-38
25. Leach AR, Shoichet BK, Peishoff CE. Prediction of protein-ligand interactions. Docking and scoring: successes and gaps. J Med Chem 2006;49:5851-5
26. Ghosh S, Nie A, An J, Huang Z. Structure-based virtual screening of chemical libraries for drug discovery. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2006;10:194-202
27. Jain AN, Nicholls A. Recommendations for evaluation of computational methods. Comput Aided Mol Des 2008;22:133-9
28. Nicholls A. What do we know and when do we know it? J Comput Aided Mol Des 2008;22:239-55
29. Hawkins PC, Warren GL, Skillman AG. How to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps. Comput Aided Mol Des 2008;22:179-90
30. Damm KL, Carlson HA. Exploring experimental sources of multiple protein conformations in structure-based drug design. J Am Chem Soc 2007;129:8225-5
31. Xiang Z. Advances in homology protein structure modeling. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2006;7:217-27
32. Berman HM,. Westbrook J, Feng Z, et al. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 2000;28:235-42
33. Dunbrack RL Jr. Sequence comparison and protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2006;16:374-84
34. Totrov M, Abagyan R. Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative. Published online 25 February 2008. doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2008.01.004
35. Cavasotto CN, Orry AJ. Ligand docking and structure-based virtual screening in drug discovery. Curr Top Med Chem 2007;7(10):1006-14
36. Battistutta R, Mazzorana M, Cendron L, et al. The ATP-binding site of protein kinase CK2 holds a positive electrostatic area and conserved water molecules. Chembiochem 2007;8:1804-9
37. Bottoms CA, White TA, Tanner JJ. Exploring structurally conserved solvent sites in protein families. Proteins 2006;64:404-21
38. Lu Y, Wang R, Yang CY, Wang S. Analysis of ligand-bound water molecules in high-resolution crystal structures of protein-ligand complexes. J Chem Inf Model 2007;47:668-75
39. Vogt J, Perozzo R, Pautsch A, et al. Nucleoside binding site of Herpes simplex type 1 thymidine kinase analyzed by X-ray crystallography. Proteins 2000;41:545-53
40. Pujadas G, Palau J. Molecular mimicry of substrate oxygen atoms by water molecules in the β-amylase active site. Protein Sci 2001;10:1645-57
41. Amadasi A, Surface JA, Spyrakis F, et al. Robust classification of "relevant" water molecules in putative protein binding sites. J Med Chem 2008;51:1063-7
42. Roberts BC, Mancera RL. Ligand-protein docking with water molecules. J Chem Inf Model 2008;48:397-408
43. Wittayanarakul K, Hannongbua S, Feig MJ. Accurate prediction of protonation state as a prerequisite for reliable MM-PB(GB)SA binding free energy calculations of HIV-1 protease inhibitors. Comput Chem 2008;29:673-85
44. Khandogin J, Brooks CL 3rd. Toward the accurate first-principles prediction of ionization equilibria in proteins. Biochemistry 2006;45:9363-73
45. Cho AE, Guallar V, Berne BJ, et al. Importance of accurate charges in molecular docking: quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) approach. J Comput Chem 2005;26:915-31
46. Zhong H, Kirschner KN, Lee M, et al. Binding free energy calculation for duocarmycin/DNA complex based on the QPLD-derived partial charge model. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2008;18:542-5
47. Pospisil P, Ballmer P, Scapozza L, Folkers G. Tautomerism in computer-aided drug design. J Recept Signal Transduct Res 2003;223:361-71
48. Lipinski CA, Lombardo D, Dominy BV, Feeney PJ. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1997;23:3-25
49. Bohacek RS, Martin C, Guida WC. The art and practice of structure-based drug design: a molecular modeling perspective. Med Res Rev 1996;16:3-50
50. Oprea TI. Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2000;14:251-64
51. Hann MM, Oprea TI. Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2004;8:255-63
52. Kenakin T. Predicting therapeutic value in the lead optimization phase of drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003;2:429-38
53. Rishton G. Nonleadlikeness and leadlikeness in biochemical screening. Drug Discov Today 2003;8:86-96
54. Lyne PD, Kenny PW, Cosgrove DA, et al. Identification of compounds with nanomolar binding affinity for checkpoint kinase-1 using knowledge-based virtual screening. J Med Chem 2004;47:1962-8
55. Cherkasov A, Ban F, Li Y, et al. Progressive docking: a hybrid QSAR/ docking approach for accelerating in silico high throughput screening. J Med Chem 2006;49:7466-78
56. Barreiro G, Kim JT, Guimarães CR, et al. From docking false-positive to active anti-HIV agent. J Med Chem 2007;50:5324-9
57. Warren GL, Andrews CW, Capelli AM, et al. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J Med Chem 2006;49:5912-31
58. FlexX Release 2.2
59. Glide, version 4.5, Schrödinger, LLC, New York, NY; 2007
60. Nicholls A, Mobley DL, Guthrie JP, et al. Predicting small-molecule solvation free energies: an informal blind test for computational chemistry. J Med Chem 2008;51:769-79
61. Lu Y, Yang CY, Wang S. Binding free energy contributions of interfacial waters in HIV-1 protease/inhibitor complexes. J Am Chem Soc 2006;128:11830-9
62. Rajamani R, Good AC. Ranking poses in structure-based lead discovery and optimization: current trends in scoring function development. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2007;10:308-15
63. Halgren TA. Merck molecular force field. I. Basis, form, scope, parametrization, and performance of MMFF94. J Comput Chem 1996;17:490-519
64. Duan Y, Wu C, Chowdhury S, et al. A point-charge force field for molecular mechanics simulations of proteins based on condensed-phase quantum mechanical calculations. J Comput Chem 2003;24:1999-2012
65. Wang J, Wolf RM, Caldwell JW, et al. Development and testing of a general amber force field. J Comput Chem 2004;25:1157-74
66. Baxter CA, Murray CW, Clark DE, et al. Flexible docking using tabu search and an empirical estimate of binding affinity. Proteins 1998;33:367-82
67. Verkhivker GM. Computational analysis of ligand binding dynamics at the intermolecular hot spots with the aid of simulated tempering and binding free energy calculations. J Mol Grap Model 2004;22:335-48
68. 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
69. Pham TA, Jain AN. Customizing scoring functions for docking. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2008;22:269-86 69 Muegge I. PMF scoring revisited. J Med Chem 2006;49:5895-902
70. Teramoto R, Fukunishi H. Supervised consensus scoring for docking and virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2007;47:526-34
71. Wang R, Lu Y, Wang S. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J Med Chem 2003;46:2287-303
72. Perola E. Minimizing false positives in kinase virtual screens. Proteins 2006;64:422-35
73. Chuaqui DC, Singh J. Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. J Med Chem 2004;47:337-44
74. Enyedy IJ, Egan WJ. Can we use docking and scoring for hit-to-lead optimization? J Comput Aided Mol 2008;22:161-8
75. Oprea TI, Davis AM, Teague SJ, Leeson PD. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2001;41:1308-15
76. Sherman W, Day T, Jacobson MP, et al. Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. J Med Chem 2006;49:534-53
77. Zhou Z, Felts AK, Friesner RA, Levy RM. Comparative performance of several flexible docking programs and scoring functions: enrichment studies for a diverse set of pharmaceutically relevant targets. J Chem Inf Model 2007;47:1599-608
78. Weis A, Katebzadeh K, Söderhjelm P, et al. Ligand affinities predicted with the MM/PBSA method: dependence on the simulation method and the force field. J Med Chem 2006;49:6596-606
79. Graves AP, Shivakumar DM, Boyce SE, et al. Rescoring docking hit lists for model cavity sites: predictions and experimental testing. J Mol Biol 2008;377:914-34
80. Manly CJ, Chandrasekhar J, Ochterski JW, et al. Strategies and tactics for optimizing the Hit-to-Lead process and beyond-A computational chemistry perspective. Drug Discov Today 2008;13:99-109
81. Bortolato A, Moro S. In silico binding free energy predictability by using the linear interaction energy (LIE) method: bromobenzimidazole CK2 inhibitors as a case study. J Chem Inf Model 2007;47:572-82
82. Chilin A, Battistutta R, Bortolato A, et al. Coumarin as attractive casein kinase 2 (CK2) inhibitor scaffold: an integrate approach to elucidate the putative binding motif and explain structure-activity relationships. J Med Chem 2008;51:752-9
83. Moro S, Braiuca P, Deflorian F, et al. Combined target-based and ligand-based drug design approach as a tool to define a novel 3D-pharmacophore model of human A3 adenosine receptor antagonists: pyrazolo[4,3-e]1,2,4-triazolo(1x,5-c] pyrimidine derivatives as a key study. J Med Chem 2005;48:152-62
84. Wells JA, McClendon CL. Reaching for high-hanging fruit in drug discovery at protein-protein interfaces. Nature 2007;450:1001-9
85. Segers K, Sperandio O, Sack M, et al. Design of protein membrane interaction inhibitors by virtual ligand screening, proof of concept with the C2 domain of factor V. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007;104:12697-702
86. Whitty A, Kumaravel G. Between a rock and a hard place? Nat Chem Biol 2006;2:112-8
87. Moro S, Bacilieri M, Deflorian F. Combining ligand-based and structure-based drug design in the virtual screening arena. Expert Opin Drug Disc 2007;2:37-49
88. Moro S, Deflorian F, Bacilieri M, Spalluto G. Ligand-based homology modeling as attractive tool to inspect GPCR structural plasticity. Curr Pharm Des 2006;12:2175-85
89. GOLD Version 3.2
90. 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
91. Verdonk ML, Cole JC, Hartshorn MJ, et al. Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins 2003;52:609-23
92. Mooij WTM, Verdonk ML. General and targeted statistical potentials for protein-ligand interactions. Proteins Struct Func Bioinf 2005;61:272-87
93. Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T, Klebe G. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol 1996;261:470-89
94. Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T. Docking of hydrophobic ligands with interaction-based matching algorithms. Bioinformatics 1999;15:243-50
95. Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, et al. Glide: new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 2004;47:1739-49
96. Friesner RA, Murphy RB, Repasky MP, et al. Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes. J Med Chem 2006;49:6177-96
97. Korb O, Stützle T, Exner TE. An ant colony optimization approach to flexible protein-ligand docking. Swarm Intell 2007;1:115-34
98. Zsoldos Z, Reid D, Simon A, et al. eHiTS: an innovative approach to the docking and scoring function problems. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2006;7:421-35
99. Fred Release Version 2.2.3
100. Omega Release Version 2.1.1
101. Matthew DE, Christopher WM, Timothy RA, et al. 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;11:425-45
102. Grant JA, Pickup BT, Nicholls A. A smooth permittivity function for poisson-boltzmann solvation methods. J Comput Chem 2001;22:608-40
103. McGann MR, Almond HR, Nicholls A, et al. Gaussian docking functions. Biopolymers 2003;68:76-90
104. MOE (The Molecular Operating Environment) Version 2006.08, software available from Chemical Computing Group, Inc., 1010 Sherbrooke Street West, Suite 910, Montreal, Canada H3A 2R7. Available from: http://www.chemcomp.com
105. Bater CA, Murray CW, Clark DE, et al. Flexible docking using tabu search and an empirical estimate of binding affinity. Proteins 1998;33:367-82
106. Andrews PR, Craik DJ, Martin JL. Functional group contributions to drug-receptor interactions. J Med Chem 1984;27:1648-57
107. Hart TN, Read RJ. A multiple-start Monte Carlo docking method. Proteins 1992;13:206-22
108. Goto J, Kataoka R, Hirayama N. Ph4Dock: pharmacophore-based protein-ligand docking. J Med Chem 2004;47:6804-11
109. Edelsbrunner H, Koehl P. The weighted-volume derivative of a space-filling diagram. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003;100:2203-8
110. Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Halliday RS, et al. Automated docking using a lamarckian genetic algorithm and empirical binding free energy function. J Comput Chem 1998;19:1639-62
111. Huey R, Morris GM, Olson AJ, et al. A semiempirical free energy force field with charge-based desolvation. J Comput Chem 2007;28:1145-52