A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking

Bioinformatics

Volumn 26, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1169-1175

  Ballester, Pedro J ^a   Mitchell, John B O ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BIOLOGY; CHEMISTRY; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; DRUG DESIGN; METHODOLOGY; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN DATABASE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DATABASES, PROTEIN; DRUG DESIGN; LIGANDS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 77952825581     PISSN: 13674803     EISSN: 14602059     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq112     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Amini, A. et al. (2007) A general approach for developing system-specific functions to score protein-ligand docked complexes using support vector inductive logic programming. Proteins, 69, 823-831.
2. Baxter, C.A. et al. (1998) Flexible docking using Tabu search and an empirical estimate of binding affinity. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 33, 367-382.
3. Berman, H.M. et al. (2000) The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res., 28, 235-242.
4. Böhm, H.-J. (1994) The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 8, 243-256.
5. Böhm, H.-J. (1998) Prediction of binding constants of protein ligands: a fast method for the prioritization of hits obtained from de novo design or 3D database search programs. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 12, 309-323.
6. Breiman, L. (2001) Random Forests. Mach. Learn., 45, 5-32.
7. Breiman, L. et al. (1984) Classification and Regression Trees. Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York, NY, USA.
8. Cases, M. and Mestres, J. (2009)Achemogenomic approach to drug discovery: focus on cardiovascular diseases. Drug Discov. Today, 14, 479-485.
9. Chen, X. and Liu, M. (2005) Prediction of protein-protein interactions using random decision forest framework. Bioinformatics, 21, 4394-4400.
10. Cheng, T. et al. (2009) Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 49, 1079-1093.
11. Deng, W. et al. (2004) Predicting protein-ligand binding affinities using novel geometrical descriptors and machine-learning methods. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 44, 699-703.
12. Eldridge, M.D. et al. (1997) 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., 11, 425-445.
13. Favia, A.D. et al. (2008) Molecular docking for substrate identification: the short-chain dehydrogenases/reductases. J. Mol. Biol., 375, 855-874.
14. Ferrara, P. et al. (2004) Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. J. Med. Chem., 47, 3032-3047.
15. Friesner, R.A. et al. (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem., 47, 1739-1749.
16. Friesner, R.A. et al. (2006) Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes. J. Med. Chem., 49, 6177-6196.
17. Gehlhaar, D.K. et al. (1995) Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 Protease: conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. Chem. Biol., 2, 317-324.
18. Gohlke, H. et al. (2000) Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol., 295, 337-356.
19. Guvench, O. and MacKerell, A.D., Jr. (2009) Computational evaluation of protein-small molecule binding. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 19, 56-61.
20. Hamby, S.E.and Hirst, J.D. (2008) Prediction of glycosylation sites using random forests. BMC Bioinformatics, 9, 500.
21. Huang, N. et al. (2006) Molecular mechanics methods for predicting protein-ligand binding. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 8, 5166-5177.
22. Irwin, J. (2008) Community benchmarks for virtual screening. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 22, 193-199.
23. Jain, A.N. (1996) Scoring noncovalent protein-ligand interactions: a continuous differentiable function tuned to compute binding affinities. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 10, 427-440.
24. Jones, G. et al. (1995) Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation. J. Mol. Biol., 245, 43-53.
25. Jones, G. et al. (1997) Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J. Mol. Biol., 267, 727-748.
26. Kitchen, D.B. et al. (2004) Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 3, 935-949.
27. Konstantinou Kirtay, C. et al. (2005) Knowledge based potentials: the reverse Boltzmann methodology, virtual screening and molecular weight dependence, QSAR Comb. Sci., 24, 527-536.
28. Krammer, A. et al. (2005) LigScore: a novel scoring function for predicting binding affinities. J. Mol. Graph. Model., 23, 395-407.
29. Kulharia, M. et al. (2008) Information theory-based scoring function for the structure-based prediction of protein-ligand binding affinity. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 48, 1990-1998.
30. Leach, A.R. (2001) Molecular Modelling: Principles andApplications. 2nd edn. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, UK.
31. Leach, A.R. et al. (2006) Prediction of protein-ligand interactions. docking and scoring: successes and gaps. J. Med. Chem., 49, 5851-5855.
32. Mitchell, J.B.O. et al. (1999a) BLEEP-potential of meanf orce describing protein-ligand interactions: I. Generating potential. J. Comput. Chem., 20, 1165-1176.
33. Mitchell, J.B.O. et al. (1999b) BLEEP-potential of mean force describing protein-ligand interactions: II. Calculation of binding energies and comparison with experimental data. J. Comput. Chem., 20, 1177-1185.
34. Moitessier, N. et al. (2008) Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go. Br. J. Pharmacol., 153, S7-S26.
35. Mooij, W.T.M. and Verdonk, M.L. (2005) General and targeted statistical potentials for protein-ligand interactions. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf., 61, 272-287.
36. Muegge, I. (2000) A knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: probing the reference state. Perspect. Drug Discov. Des., 20, 99-114.
37. Muegge, I. (2001) Effect of ligand volume correction on PMF scoring. J. Comput. Chem., 22, 418-425.
38. Muegge, I. (2006) PMF scoring revisited. J. Med. Chem., 49, 5895-5902.
39. Muegge, I. and Martin, Y.C. (1999) A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. J. Med. Chem., 42, 791-804.
40. Rucker, C. et al. (2007) y-Randomization and its variants in QSPR/QSAR. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 47, 2345-2357.
41. Sato, T. et al. (2010) Combining machine learning and pharmacophore-based interaction fingerprint for in silico screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 50, 170-185.
42. Svetnik, V. et al. (2003) Random forest: a classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 43, 1947-1958.
43. The Discovery Studio Software, version 2.0 (2001). Accelrys Software Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.
44. The Schrödinger Software, version 8.0 (2005). Schrödinger, LLC, New York, USA.
45. The Sybyl Software, version 7.2 (2006). Tripos Inc., St Louis, MO, USA.
46. Velec, H.F.G. et al. (2005) DrugScoreCSD - knowledge-based scoring function derived from small molecule crystal data with superior recognition rate of near-native ligand poses and better affinity prediction. J. Med. Chem., 48, 6296-6303.
47. Wang, R. et al. (2002) Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 16, 11-26.
48. Wang, R. et al. (2003) Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem., 46, 2287-2303.
49. Wang, R. et al. (2004) An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein-ligand complexes. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 44, 2114-2125.
50. Wang, R. et al. (2005) The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates. J. Med. Chem., 48, 4111-4119.
51. Xu, X. et al. (2009) Chemical probes that competitively and selectively inhibit Stat3 activation. PLoS ONE, 4, e4783.