Rescoring ligand docking poses

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 326-334

  Zhong, Shijun ^a   Zhang, Youping ^b   Xiu, Zhilong ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b HUAZHONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^c DALIAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (China)

Author keywords

Binding free energy; consensus scoring; geometrical match; normalization; rescoring ligand docking pose

Indexed keywords

LIGAND;

ACCURACY; BINDING AFFINITY; BINDING SITE; CALCULATION; CONFORMATIONAL TRANSITION; CONSENSUS; DATA BASE; ENERGY; GEOMETRY; LEARNING; LIGAND BINDING; MOLECULAR DOCKING; MOLECULAR MECHANICS; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; MONTE CARLO METHOD; QUANTUM MECHANICS; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; SCREENING; SOLVATION; SOLVENT EFFECT; SURFACE PROPERTY;

BINDING SITES; DRUG DISCOVERY; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; PROTEIN BINDING; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 77954063262     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (83)

1. Kolb P, Irwin JJ: Docking screens: Right for the right reasons? Curr Top Med Chem (2009) 9(9):755-770.
2. Zhong S, Macias AT, MacKerell AD Jr: Computational identifcation of inhibitors of protein-protein interactions. Curr Top Med Chem (2007) 7(1):63-82.
3. Cheng T, Li X, Li Y, Liu Z, Wang R: Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set. J Chem Inf Model (2009) 49(4):1079-1093.
4. Kontoyianni M, Madhav P, Suchanek E, Seibel W: Theoretical and practical considerations in virtual screening: A beaten feld? Curr Med Chem (2008) 15(2):107-116.
5. Grigoriev FV, Luschekina SV, Romanov AN, Sulimov VB, Nikitina EA: Computation of entropy contribution to protein-ligand binding free energy. Biochemistry (Mosc) (2007) 72(7):785-792.
6. Moustakas DT, Lang PT, Pegg S, Pettersen E, Kuntz ID, Brooijmans N, Rizzo RC: Development and validation of a modular, extensible docking program: DOCK 5. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2006) 20(10-11):601-619.
7. Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, Sanner MF, Belew RK, Goodsell DS, Olson AJ: AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor fexibility. J Comput Chem (2009) 30(16):2785-2791.
8. Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC, Leach AR, Taylor R: Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for fexible docking. J Mol Biol (1997) 267(3):727-748.
9. Vanommeslaeghe K, Hatcher E, Acharya C, Kundu S, Zhong S, Shim J, Darian E, Guvench O, Lopes P, Vorobyov I, Mackerell AD Jr: CHARMM general force feld: A force feld for drug-like molecules compatible with the CHARMM all-atom additive biological force felds. J Comput Chem (2010) 31(4):671-690.
10. Bohm HJ: LUDI: Rule-based automatic design of new substituents for enzyme inhibitor leads. J Comput Aided Mol Des (1992) 6(6):593-606.
11. Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T, Klebe G: A fast fexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol (1996) 261(3):470-489.
12. Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, Halgren TA, Klicic JJ, Mainz DT, Repasky MP, Knoll EH, Shelley M, Perry JK, Shaw DE et al: Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem (2004) 47(7):1739-1749.
13. Krammer A, Kirchhoff PD, Jiang X, Venkatachalam CM, Waldman M: LigScore: A novel scoring function for predicting binding affnities. J Mol Graph Model (2005) 23(5):395-407.
14. Gehlhaar DK, Verkhivker GM, Rejto PA, Sherman CJ, Fogel DB, Fogel LJ, Freer ST: Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: Conformationally fexible docking by evolutionary programming. Chem Biol (1995) 2(5):317-324.
15. Wang R, Lai L, Wang S: Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affnity prediction. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2002) 16(1):11-26.
16. Eldridge MD, Murray CW, Auton TR, Paolini GV, Mee RP: Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affnity of ligands in receptor complexes. J Comput Aided Mol Des (1997) 11(5): 425-445.
17. Muegge I: PMF scoring revisited. J Med Chem (2006) 49(20): 5895-5902.
18. Zhang C, Liu S, Zhu Q, Zhou Y: A knowledge-based energy function for protein-ligand, protein-protein, and protein-DNA complexes. J Med Chem (2005) 48(7):2325-2335.
19. DeWitte RS, Shakhnovich EI: 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(47):11733-11744.
20. Yang CY, Wang R, Wang S: M-Score: A knowledge-based potential scoring function accounting for protein atom mobility. J Med Chem (2006) 49(20):5903-5911.
21. Huang SY, Zou X: An iterative knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions: I. Derivation of interaction potentials. J Comput Chem (2006) 27(15):1866-1875. (Pubitemid 44672568)
22. CSD-Knowledge-based scoring function derived from small molecule crystal data with superior recognition rate of near-native ligand poses and better affnity prediction. J Med Chem (2005) 48(20):6296-6303.
23. Deng Z, Chuaqui C, Singh J: Structural interaction fngerprint (SIFt): A novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. J Med Chem (2004) 47(2):337-344.
24. Kroemer RT, Vulpetti A, McDonald JJ, Rohrer DC, Trosset JY, Giordanetto F, Cotesta S, McMartin C, Kihlén M, Stouten PF: Assessment of docking poses: Interactions-based accuracy classifcation (IBAC) versus crystal structure deviations. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2004) 44(3):871-881.
25. Warren GL, Andrews CW, Capelli AM, Clarke B, LaLonde J, Lambert MH, Lindvall M, Nevins N, Semus SF, Senger S, Tedesco G et al: A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J Med Chem (2006) 49(20):5912-5931.
26. Good AC, Oprea TI: Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: A help or hindrance in tool selection? J Comput Aided Mol Des (2008) 22(3-4):169-178.
27. Deng W, Verlinde CL: Evaluation of different virtual screening programs for docking in a charged binding pocket. J Chem Inf Model (2008) 48(10):2010-2020.
28. Oprea TI, Allu TK, Fara DC, Rad RF, Ostopovici L, Bologa CG: Lead-like, drug-like or 'pub-like': How different are they? J Comput Aided Mol Des (2007) 21(1-3):113-119.
29. Zhong S, MacKerell AD Jr: Pose scaling: Geometrical assessment of ligand binding poses. J Theor Comput Chem (2008) 7(4):833-853.
30. Henrich S, Feierberg I, Wang T, Blomberg N, Wade RC: Comparative binding energy analysis for binding affnity and target selectivity prediction. Proteins (2010) 78(1):135-153.
31. Ghersi D, Sanchez R: Improving accuracy and effciency of blind protein-ligand docking by focusing on predicted binding sites. Proteins (2009) 74(2):417-424.
32. Zhong S, MacKerell AD Jr: Binding response: A descriptor for selecting ligand binding site on protein surfaces. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(6):2303-2315.
33. Cai W, Xu J, Shao X, Leroux V, Beautrait A, Maigret B: SHEF: A vHTS geometrical flter using coeffcients of spherical harmonic molecular surfaces. J Mol Model (2008) 14(5):393-401.
34. Fukunishi Y, Nakamura H: Prediction of protein-ligand complex structure by docking software guided by other complex structures. J Mol Graph Model (2008) 26(6):1030-1033.
35. Pan Y, Huang N, Cho S, MacKerell AD Jr: Consideration of molecular weight during compound selection in virtual target-based database screening. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2003) 43(1):267-272.
36. Zhong S, Chen X, Zhu X, Dziegielewska B, Bachman KE, Ellenberger T, Ballin JD, Wilson GM, Tomkinson AE, MacKerell AD Jr: Identifcation and validation of human DNA ligase inhibitors using computer-aided drug design. J Med Chem (2008) 51(15):4553-4562.
37. Carta G, Knox AJ, Lloyd DG: Unbiasing scoring functions: A new normalization and rescoring strategy. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(4):1564-1571.
38. Oda A, Tsuchida K, Takakura T, Yamaotsu N, Hirono S: Comparison of consensus scoring strategies for evaluating computational models of protein-ligand complexes. J Chem Inf Model (2006) 46(1):380-391.
39. Wang R, Wang S: How does consensus scoring work for virtual library screening? An idealized computer experiment. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41(5):1422-1426.
40. O'Boyle NM, Liebeschuetz JW, Cole JC: Testing assumptions and hypotheses for rescoring success in protein-ligand docking. J Chem Inf Model (2009) 49(8):1871-1878.
41. Englebienne P, Moitessier N: Docking ligands into fexible and solvated macromolecules. 4. Are popular scoring functions accurate for this class of proteins? J Chem Inf Model (2009) 49(6):1568-1580.
42. Li H, Zhang H, Zheng M, Luo J, Kang L, Liu X, Wang X, Jiang H: An effective docking strategy for virtual screening based on multi-objective optimization algorithm. BMC Bioinformatics (2009) 10:58.
43. Teramoto R, Fukunishi H: Supervised consensus scoring for docking and virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(2): 526-534.
44. Teramoto R, Fukunishi H: Structure-based virtual screening with supervised consensus scoring: Evaluation of pose prediction and enrichment factors. J Chem Inf Model (2008) 48(4):747-754.
45. Teramoto R, Fukunishi H: Consensus scoring with feature selection for structure-based virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model (2008) 48(2):288-295.
46. Fukunishi H, Teramoto R, Takada T, Shimada J: Bootstrap-based consensus scoring method for protein-ligand docking. J Chem Inf Model (2008) 48(5):988-996.
47. Bar-Haim S, Aharon A, Ben-Moshe T, Marantz Y, Senderowitz H: SeleX-CS: A new consensus scoring algorithm for hit discovery and lead optimization. J Chem Inf Model (2009) 49(3):623-633.
48. Brooks BR, Brooks CL 3rd, Mackerell AD Jr, Nilsson L, Petrella RJ, Roux B, Won Y, Archontis G, Bartels C, Boresch S, Cafisch A et al: CHARMM: The biomolecular simulation program. J Comput Chem (2009) 30(10):1545-1614.
49. 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(3):308-315.
50. Woo HJ: Calculation of absolute protein-ligand binding constants with the molecular dynamics free energy perturbation method. Methods Mol Biol (2008) 443:109-120.
51. Grigoriev FV, Gabin SN, Romanov AN, Sulimov VB: Computation of the contribution from the cavity effect to protein-ligand binding free energy. J Phys Chem B (2008) 112(48): 15355-15360.
52. Doudou S, Burton NA, Henchman RH: Standard free energy of binding from a one-dimensional potential of mean force. J Chem Theory Comput (2009) 5(4):909-918.
53. Knight JL, Brooks CL 3rd: a;-Dynamics free energy simulation methods. J Comput Chem (2009) 30(11):1692-1700.
54. Jiang W, Hodosock M, Roux B: Computation of absolute hydration and binding free energy with free energy perturbation distributed replica-exchange molecular dynamics. J Chem Theory Comput (2009) 5(10):2583-2588.
55. Rodinger T, Howell PL, Pomès R: Calculation of absolute protein-ligand binding free energy using distributed replica sampling. J Chem Phys (2008) 129(15):155102.
56. Zheng L, Yang W: On the simulated scaling based free energy simulations: Adaptive optimization of the scaling parameter intervals. J Chem Phys (2008) 129(12):124107.
57. Zhou HX: Calculation of free-energy differences and potentials of mean force by a multi-energy gap method. J Chem Phys (2008) 128(11):114104.
58. Kawasaki Y, Chufan EE, Lafont V, Hidaka K, Kiso Y, Mario Amzel L, Freire E: How much binding affnity can be gained by flling a cavity? Chem Biol Drug Des (2010) 75(2):143-151.
59. Knight JL, Brooks CL: Validating CHARMM parameters and exploring charge distribution rules in structure-based drug design. J Chem Theory Comput (2009) 5(6):1680-1691.
60. Branduardi D, Gervasio FL, Parrinello M: From A to B in free energy space. J Chem Phys (2007) 126(5):054103.
61. Fukunishi Y, Mitomo D, Nakamura H: Protein-ligand binding free energy calculation by the smooth reaction path generation (SRPG) method. J Chem Inf Model (2009) 49(8):1944-1951.
62. Zheng L, Chen M, Yang W: Random walk in orthogonal space to achieve effcient free-energy simulation of complex systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2008) 105(51):20227-20232.
63. Clark M, Meshkat S, Wiseman JS: Grand canonical free-energy calculations of protein-ligand binding. J Chem Inf Model (2009) 49(4):934-943.
64. Deng Y, Roux B: Computation of binding free energy with molecular dynamics and grand canonical Monte Carlo simulations. J Chem Phys (2008) 128(11):115103.
65. Tomasi J, Mennucci B, Cammi R: Quantum mechanical continuum solvation models. Chem Rev (2005) 105(8):2999-3093.
66. Schüpbach T, Zoete V, Tsakam-Sotché B, Michielin O: Fourier transform convolution integrals applied to generalized Born molecular volume. J Comput Chem (2010) 31(3):649-659.
67. Rastelli G, Degliesposti G, Del Rio A, Sgobba M: Binding estimation after refnement, a new automated procedure for the refnement and rescoring of docked ligands in virtual screening. Chem Biol Drug Des (2009) 73(3):283-286.
68. Rastelli G, Rio AD, Degliesposti G, Sgobba M: Fast and accurate predictions of binding free energies using MM-PBSA and MM-GBSA. J Comput Chem (2010) 31(4):797-810.
69. Thompson DC, Humblet C, Joseph-McCarthy D: Investigation of MM-PBSA rescoring of docking poses. J Chem Inf Model (2008) 48(5):1081-1091.
70. Wang M, Wong CF: Rank-ordering protein-ligand binding affnity by a quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann-surface area model. J Chem Phys (2007) 126(2):026101.
71. Bryantsev VS, Diallo MS, Goddard WA 3rd: Calculation of solvation free energies of charged solutes using mixed cluster/continuum models. J Phys Chem B (2008) 112(32): 9709-9719.
72. da Silva EF, Svendsen HF, Merz KM: Explicitly representing the solvation shell in continuum solvent calculations. J Phys Chem A (2009) 113(22):6404-6409.
73. Wittayanarakul K, Hannongbua S, Feig M: Accurate prediction of protonation state as a prerequisite for reliable MM-PB(GB)SA binding free energy calculations of HIV-1 protease inhibitors. J Comput Chem (2008) 29(5):673-685.
74. Kongsted J, Soderhjelm P, Ryde U: How accurate are continuum solvation models for drug-like molecules? J Comput Aided Mol Des (2009) 23(7):395-409.
75. Graves AP, Shivakumar DM, Boyce SE, Jacobson MP, Case DA, Shoichet BK: Rescoring docking hit lists for model cavity sites: Predictions and experimental testing. J Mol Biol (2008) 377(3):914-934.
76. Pearlman DA, Rao BG, Charifson P: FURSMASA: A new approach to rapid scoring functions that uses a MD-averaged potential energy grid and a solvent-accessible surface area term with parameters GA ft to experimental data. Proteins (2008) 71(3):1519-1538.
77. Haberthur U, Cafisch A: FACTS: Fast analytical continuum treatment of solvation. J Comput Chem (2008) 29(5):701-715.
78. Yang CY, Sun H, Chen J, Nikolovska-Coleska Z, Wang S: Importance of ligand reorganization free energy in protein-ligand binding-affnity prediction. J Am Chem Soc (2009) 131(38):13709-13721.
79. Fong P, McNamara JP, Hillier IH, Bryce RA: Assessment of QM/MM scoring functions for molecular docking to HIV-1 protease. J Chem Inf Model (2009) 49(4):913-924.
80. Vreven T, Byun KS, Komáromi I, Dapprich S, Montgomery JA, Morokuma K, Frisch MJ: Combining quantum mechanics methods with molecular mechanics methods in ONIOM. J Chem Theory Comput (2006) 2(3):815-826.
81. Cho AE, Rinaldo D: Extension of QM/MM docking and its applications to metalloproteins. J Comput Chem (2009) 30(16):2609-2616.
82. Lu Y, Wang Y, Xu Z, Yan X, Luo X, Jiang H, Zhu W: C-X...H contacts in biomolecular systems: How they contribute to protein-ligand binding affnity. J Phys Chem B (2009) 113(37):12615-12621.
83. Gleeson MP, Gleeson D: QM/MM as a tool in fragment based drug discovery. A cross-docking, rescoring study of kinase inhibitors. J Chem Inf Model (2009) 49(6):1437-1448.