Chapter 16 Recent Evaluations of High Throughput Docking Methods for Pharmaceutical Lead Finding - Consensus and Caveats

Annual Reports in Computational Chemistry

Volumn 2, Issue C, 2006, Pages 297-323

  Cornell, Wendy D ^a  

^a MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956760347     PISSN: 15741400     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/S1574-1400(06)02016-0     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Bursulaya B.D., Totrov M., Abagyan R., and Brooks III C.L. Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 17 (2003) 755-763
2. Kellenberger E., Rodrigo J., Muller P., and Rognan D. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins 57 (2004) 225-242
3. Schulz-Gasch T., and Stahl M. Binding site characteristics in structure-based virtual screening: Evaluation of current docking tools. J. Mol. Model (Online). 9 (2003) 47-57
4. Klon A.E., Glick M., Thoma M., Acklin P., and Davies J.W. Finding more needles in the haystack: A simple and efficient method for improving high-throughput docking results. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004) 2743-2749
5. Perola E., Walters W.P., and Charifson P.S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins 56 (2004) 235-249
6. Muegge I., and Enyedy I.J. Virtual screening for kinase targets. Curr. Med. Chem. 11 (2004) 693-707
7. Cummings M.D., DesJarlais R.L., Gibbs A.C., Mohan V., and Jaeger E.P. Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 962-976
8. Kontoyianni M., Sokol G.S., and McClellan L.M. Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening. J. Comput. Chem. 26 (2005) 11-22
9. G. L. Warren, C. W. Andrews, A.-M. Capelli, B. Clarke, J. LaLonde, M. H. Lambert, M. Lindvall, N. Nevins, S. F. Semus, S. Senger, G. Tedesco, I. D. Wall, J. M. Woolven, C. E. Peishoff, M. S. Head, J. Med. Chem., A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions, 2005, ASAP Article, DOI: 10.1021/jm050362n.
10. Chen H., Lyne P.D., Giordanetto F., Lovell T., and Li J. On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006) 401-415
11. Kuntz I.D., Blaney J.M., Oatley S.J., Langridge R., and Ferrin T.E. A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 161 (1982) 269-288
12. Alvarez J.C. High-throughput docking as a source of novel drug leads. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 8 (2004) 365-370
13. Morris G.M., Goodsell D.S., Halliday R.S., Huey R., Hart W.E., Belew R.K., and Olson A.J. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J. Comput. Chem. 19 (1998) 1639-1662
14. Ewing T.J.M., Skillman S., and Kuntz A.G. I.D. DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases,. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 15 (2001) 411-428
15. J. M. Blaney, and J. S. Dixon, 1.0 eds, Metaphorics, LLC, Mission Viejo, CA.
16. Hart T.N., and Read R.J. A multiple-start Monte Carlo docking method. Proteins 13 (1992) 206-222
17. Hart T.N., Ness S.R., and Read R.J. Critical evaluation of the research docking program for the CASP2 challenge. Proteins Suppl 1 (1997) 205-209
18. Rarey M., Kramer B., Lengauer T., and Klebe G. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J. Mol. Biol. 261 (1996) 470-489
19. McMartin C., and Bohacek R.S. QXP: Powerful, rapid computer algorithms for structure-based drug design. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 11 (1997) 333-344
20. McGann M.R., Almond H.R., Nicholls A., Grant J.A., and Brown F.K. Gaussian docking functions. Biopolymers 68 (2003) 76-90
21. 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., and Shenkin P.S. Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004) 1739-1749
22. Halgren T.A., Murphy R.B., Friesner R.A., Beard H.S., Frye L.L., Pollard W.T., and Banks J.L. Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004) 1750-1759
23. Jones G., Willett P., Glen R.C., Leach A.R., and Taylor R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J. Mol. Biol. 267 (1997) 727-748
24. Abagyan R.T., and Kuznetsov M.R. ICM - A new method for protein modeling and design: Applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation. J. Comput. Chem. 15 (1994) 488-506
25. Venkatachalam C.M., Jiang X., Oldfield T., and Waldman M. LigandFit: A novel method for the shape-directed rapid docking of ligands to protein active sites. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 21 (2003) 289-307
26. Chemical Computing Group, Montreal, QC, Canada.
27. Zavodszky M.I., Sanschagrin P.C., Korde R.S., and Kuhn L.A. Distilling the essential features of a protein surface for improving protein-ligand docking. scoring, and virtual screening, J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 16 (2002) 883-902
28. Jain A.N. Surflex: Fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J. Med. Chem. 46 (2003) 499-511
29. Meng E.C., Gschwend D.A., Blaney J.M., and Kuntz I.D. Orientational sampling and rigid-body minimization in molecular docking. Proteins 17 (1993) 266-278
30. Eldridge M.D., Murray C.W., Auton T.R., Paolini G.V., and Mee R.P. 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 (1997) 425-445
31. Rarey M., Wefing S., and Lengauer T. Placement of medium-sized molecular fragments into active sites of proteins. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 10 (1996) 41-54
32. Wang R., Lai L., and Wang S. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 16 (2002) 11-26
33. Berman H.M., Westbrook J., Feng Z., Gilliland G., Bhat T.N., Weissig H., Shindyalov I.N., and Bourne P.E. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28 (2000) 235-242
34. Muegge I., Martin Y.C., Hajduk P.J., and Fesik S.W. Evaluation of PMF scoring in docking weak ligands to the FK506 binding protein. J. Med. Chem. 42 (1999) 2498-2503
35. Wang R., Lu Y., Fang X., and Wang S. An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein-ligand complexes. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004) 2114-2125
36. Scott R.K. Assessing the impact of high-performance computing on the drug discovery and development process. DDT, Biosilico 2 (2004) 175-179
37. McGovern S.L., and Shoichet B.K. Information decay in molecular docking screens against holo, apo, and modeled conformations of enzymes. J. Med. Chem. 46 (2003) 2895-2907
38. Kairys V., Fernandes M.X., and Gilson M.K. Screening drug-like compounds by docking to homology models: A systematic study. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006) 365-379
39. Milne G.W., Nicklaus M.C., Driscoll J.S., Wang S., and Zaharevitz D. National Cancer Institute Drug Information System 3D database. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 34 (1994) 1219-1224
40. Verdonk M.L., Berdini V., Hartshorn M.J., Mooij W.T., Murray C.W., Taylor R.D., and Watson P. Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: Avoiding artificial enrichment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004) 793-806
41. Pan Y., Huang N., Cho S., and MacKerell Jr. A.D. Consideration of molecular weight during compound selection in virtual target-based database screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43 (2003) 267-272
42. Triballeau N., Acher F., Brabet I., Pin J.P., and Bertrand H.O. Virtual screening workflow development guided by the "receiver operating characteristic" curve approach. Application to high-throughput docking on metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 4. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 2534-2547
43. Sheridan R.P., Singh S.B., Fluder E.M., and Kearsley S.K. Protocols for bridging the peptide to nonpeptide gap in topological similarity searches. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41 (2001) 1395-1406
44. Gehlhaar D.K., Verkhivker G.M., Rejto P.A., Sherman C.J., Fogel D.B., Fogel L.J., and Freer S.T. Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: Conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. Chem. Biol. 2 (1995) 317-324
45. M. Zavodszky, L. He, S. Arora and L. A. Kuhn, manuscript in preparation.
46. Jansen J.M., and Martin E.J. Target-biased scoring approaches and expert systems in structure-based virtual screening. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 8 (2004) 359-364
47. Jacobsson M., Liden P., Stjernschantz E., Bostrom H., and Norinder U. Improving structure-based virtual screening by multivariate analysis of scoring data. J. Med. Chem. 46 (2003) 5781-5789
48. Springer C., Adalsteinsson H., Young M.M., Kegelmeyer P.W., and Roe D.C. PostDOCK: A structural, empirical approach to scoring protein ligand complexes. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 6821-6831
49. Cole J.C., Murray C.W., Nissink J.W., Taylor R.D., and Taylor R. Comparing protein-ligand docking programs is difficult. Proteins 60 (2005) 325-332
50. J. Wehrle, Report of the NIGMS Workshop on Challenges in Docking and Virtual Screening, August 26, 2005. http://www.nigms.nih.gov/News/Reports/DockingWorkshop082505.htm; http://www.nigms.nih.gov/News/Reports/DockingMeeting022406.htm.