DynaDock: A now molecular dynamics-based algorithm for protein-peptide docking including receptor flexibility

Proteins: Structure, Function and Bioinformatics

Volumn 78, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1084-1104

  Antes, Iris ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Flexible ligand flexible receptor docking; Molecular docking; OPMD; Protein peptide interactions; Receptor flexibility; Soft core potential; System specific scoring function; Z score optimization

Indexed keywords

DOCKING PROTEIN; LIGAND; PEPTIDE; PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; MOLECULAR DOCKING; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; DRUG DESIGN; EVALUATION; GENETICS; METABOLISM; MOLECULAR GENETICS; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION;

ALGORITHMS; AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; DRUG DESIGN; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; PEPTIDES; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS;

EID: 77951223167     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.22629     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Sousa SF, Fernandes PA, Ramos MJ. Protein-ligand docking: current status and future challenges. Proteins 2006;65: 15-26.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Shoichet BK, Kuntz ID. Matching chemistry and shape in molecular docking. Protein Eng 1993;6: 723-732.
5. Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Halliday RS, Huey R, Hart WE, Belew RK, Olson AJ. Automated docking using a lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J Comput Chem 1998;19: 1639-1662.
6. Cozzini P, Kellogg GE, Spyrakis F, Abraham DJ, Costantino G, Emerson A, Fanelli F, Gohlke H, Kuhn LA, Morris GM, Orozco M, Pertinhez TA, Rizzi M, Sotriffer CA. Target flexibility: an emerging consideration in drug discovery and design. J Med Chem 2008;51: 6237-6255.
7. Claussen H, Buning C, Rarey M, Lengauer T. FlexE: efficient molec-ular docking considering protein structure variations. J Mol. Biol 2001;308: 377-395.
8. 8. Sherman W, Day T, Jacobson MP, Friesner RA, Farid R. Novel pro-cedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. J Med Chem 2006;49: 534-553. (Pubitemid 43157487)
9. 9. Fernández-Recio J, Totrov M, Abagyan R. ICM-DISCO docking by global energy optimization with fully flexible side-chains. Proteins 2003;52: 113-117. (Pubitemid 36648859)
10. Hartmann C, Antes I, Lengauer T. Docking and scoring with alter-native side-chain conformations. Proteins 2009;74: 712-726.
11. 11. Osterberg F, Morris GM, Sanner MF, Olson AJ, Goodsell DS. Automated docking to multiple target structures: incorporation of protein mobility and structural water heterogeneity in AutoDock. Proteins 2002;46: 34-40. (Pubitemid 34033574)
12. Sotriffer CA, Dramburg I. "In situ cross-docking" to simultaneously address multiple targets. J Med Chem 2005;48: 3122-3125.
13. Totrov M, Abagyan R. Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2008; 18: 178-184.
14. 14. Purcell AW, McCluskey J, Rossjohn J. More than one reason to rethink the use of peptides in vaccine design. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007;6: 404-414. (Pubitemid 46696551)
15. Jain R, Chawrai S. Advancements in the anti-diabetes chemothera-peutics based on amino acids, peptides, and peptidomimetics. Mini Rev Med Chem 2005;5: 469-477.
16. Yusuf-Makagiansar H, Anderson ME, Yakovleva TV, Murray JS, Sia-haan TJ. Inhibition of LFA-1/ICAM-1 and VLA-4/VCAM-1 as a therapeutic approach to inflammation and autoimmune diseases. Med Res Rev 2002;22: 146-167.
17. Kontoyianni M, McClellan LM, Sokol GS. Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms. J Med Chem 2004;47: 558-565.
18. Perola E, Walters WP, Charifson PS. A detailed comparison of cur-rent docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins 2004;56: 235-249.
19. 19. Schulz-Gasch T, Stahl M. Binding site characteristics in structure-based virtual screening: evaluation, of current docking tools. J Mol Model 2003;9: 47-57. (Pubitemid 37240092)
20. 20. Bursulaya BD, Totrov M, Abagyan R, Brooks CL, III. Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2003;17: 755-763. (Pubitemid 38418287)
21. Kellenberger E, Rodrigo J, Muller P, Rognan D. Comparative evalu-ation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins 2004;57: 225-242. (Pubitemid 39223729)
22. Jain AN. Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J Med Chem. 2003;46: 499-511.
23. 23. Rarey M, Wefing S, Lengauer T. Placement of medium-sized molec-ular fragments into active sites of proteins. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1996;10: 41-54. (Pubitemid 126712801)
24. McGann MR, Almond HR, Nicholls A, Grant JA, Brown FK. Gaussian docking functions. Biopolymers 2003;68: 76-90.
25. Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, Haigren 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. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 2004;47: 1739-1749.
26. Antes I, Siu SW, Lengauer T. DynaPred: a structure and sequence based method for the prediction of MHC class I binding pep-tide sequences and conformations. Bioinformatics 2006;22: el6-e24.
27. Logean A, Rognan D. Recovery of known T-cell epitopes by compu-tational scanning of a viral genome. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2002;16: 229-243.
28. Schafroth HD, Floudas CA. Predicting peptide binding to MHC pockets via molecular modeling, implicit solvation, and global opti-mization. Proteins 2004;54: 534-556.
29. Tong JC, Tan TW, Ranganathan S. Modeling the structure of bound peptide ligands to major histocompatibility complex. Protein Sci 2004;13: 2523-2532.
30. Bordner AJ, Abagyan R. Ab initio prediction of peptide-MHC bind-ing geometry for diverse class I MHC allotypes. Proteins 2006;63: 512-526.
31. Niv MY, Weinstein H. A flexible docking procedure for the explora-tion of peptide binding selectivity to known structures and homology models of PDZ domains. J Am Chem Soc 2005;127: 14072-14079.
32. Sood VD, Baker D. Recapitulation and design of protein binding peptide structures and sequences. J Mol Biol 2006;357: 917-927.
33. Maurer MC, Trosset JY, Lester CC, DiBella. EE, Scheraga HA. New general approach for determining the solution structure of a ligand bound weakly to a receptor: structure of a fibrinogen A alpha-like peptide bound to thrombin (S195A) obtained using NOE distance constraints and an ECEPP/3 flexible docking program. Proteins 1999;34: 29-48.
34. Liu Z, Dominy BN, Shakhnovich EI. Structural mining: self-consist-ent design on flexible protein-peptide docking and transferable binding affinity potential. J Am Chem Soc 2004;126: 8515-8528.
35. Kurcinski M, Kolinski A. Steps towards flexible docking: modeling of three-dimensional structures of the nuclear receptors bound with peptide ligands mimicking co-activators' sequences. J Steroid Bio-chem Mol Biol 2007; 103: 357-360.
36. Prasad PA, Gautham N. A new peptide docking strategy using a mean field technique with mutually orthogonal Latin square sam-pling. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2008;22: 815-829.
37. Alonso H, Bliznyuk AA, Gready JE. Combining docking and molec-ular dynamic simulations in drug design. Med Res Rev 2006;26: 531-568.
38. Mitsutake A, Sugita Y, Okamoto Y. Generalized-ensemble algo-rithms for molecular simulations of biopolymers, Biopolymers 2001;60: 96-123.
39. Earl DJ, Deem MW. Parallel tempering: theory, applications, and new perspectives. Phys Chem Chem Phys 2005;7: 3910-3916.
40. Hritz J, Oostenbrink C. Hamiltonian replica exchange molecular dynamics using soft-core interactions. J Chem Phys 2008; 128: 144121.
41. Wu G, Robertson DH, Brooks CL, III, Vieth M. Detailed analysis of grid-based molecular docking: a case study of CDOCKER-A CHARMm-based MD docking algorithm. J Comput Chem 2003;24: 1549-1562.
42. 42. Huang Z, Wong CF, Wheeler RA. Flexible protein-flexible ligand docking with disrupted velocity simulated annealing. Proteins 2008; 71: 440-454. (Pubitemid 351358623)
43. Lin JH, Perryman AL, Schames JR, McCammon JA. Computational drug design accommodating receptor flexibility: the relaxed com-plex scheme. J Am. Chem Soc 2002;124: 5632-5633.
44. Taylor RD, Jewsbury PJ, Essex JW, FDS: flexible ligand and receptor docking with a continuum solvent model and soft-core energy function. J Comput. Chem 2003;24: 1637-1656.
45. Huber T, Torda AE, Gunsteren WFv. Structure optimization com-bining soft-core interaction functions, the diffusion equation method, and molecular dynamics. J Phys Chem A. 1997;101: 5926-5930.
46. Pitera JW, Van Gunsteren WF. A comparison of non-bonded scaling approaches for free energy calculations. Mol Simul 2002; 28: 45-65.
47. 47. Riemann RN, Zacharias M, Refinement of protein cores and pro-tein-peptide interfaces using a potential scaling approach. Protein Eng Des Sel 2005;18: 465-476. (Pubitemid 41433103)
48. Chen WW, Shakhnovich EI, Lessons from the design of a novel atomic potential for protein folding. Protein Sci 2005;14: 1741-1752.
49. Jorgensen WL, Maxwell DS, TiradoRives J. Development and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids. J Am Chem Soc 1996; 118: 11225-11236.
50. Gunsteren WFv, Berendsen HJC. A leap-frog algorithm for stochas-tic dynamics. Mol Simul 1988; 1: 173-185.
51. 51. Fan H, Mark AE, Zhu J, Honig B. Comparative study of generalized Born models: protein dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005; 102: 6760-6764. (Pubitemid 40675389)
52. Ryckaert J-P, Ciccotti G, Berendsen H. J Comput Phys 1977;23: 327-341.
53. Berendsen H, Postma J, Gunsteren Wv, DiNola A, Haak J. J Chem Phys 1984;81: 3684-3690.
54. Gallicchio E, Levy RM. AGBNP: an analytic implicit solvent model suitable for molecular dynamics simulations and high-resolution modeling. J Comput Chem 2004;25: 479-499.
55. Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K. VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J Mol Graph 1996;14: 33-38, 27-38.