Estimating binding affinities by docking/scoring methods using variable protonation states

Proteins: Structure, Function and Bioinformatics

Volumn 79, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 304-314

  Park, Min Sun ^a   Gao, Cen ^b   Stern, Harry A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Binding pose; Docking; Protein ligand binding affinity; Protonation state; Scoring function

Indexed keywords

BETA GLUCOSIDASE; BLOOD CLOTTING FACTOR 10A; CARBONATE DEHYDRATASE II; HIV 1 PROTEASE; HYDROLYASE; LIGAND; OLIGOPEPTIDE BINDING PROTEIN; PENICILLIN AMIDASE; PROTEIN; PROTEIN SERINE THREONINE KINASE; PROTEIN TYROSINE PHOSPHATASE 1B; PROTEINASE; RIBONUCLEASE A; SCYTALONE DEHYDRATASE; STROMELYSIN; THERMOLYSIN; THROMBIN; TRYPSIN; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; UROKINASE;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; BINDING SITE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; LIGAND BINDING; MOLECULAR DOCKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTON TRANSPORT;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; HYDROGEN-ION CONCENTRATION; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN STRUCTURE, TERTIARY; RECEPTORS, CYTOPLASMIC AND NUCLEAR;

EID: 78649776250     PISSN: 08873585     EISSN: 10970134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/prot.22883     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Jorgensen WL. The many roles of computation in drug discovery. Science 2004; 303: 1813-1818.
2. Reddy MR, Erion MD. Free energy calculations in rational drug design. New York: Kluwer Academic; 2001.
3. Gilson MK, Zhou HX. Calculation of protein-ligand binding affinities. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 2007; 36: 21-42.
4. Walters WP, Stahl MT, Murcko MA. Virtual screening-an overview. Drug Discov Today 1998; 3: 160-178.
5. Brooijmans N, Kuntz ID. Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 2003; 32: 335-373.
6. Cummings MD, DesJarlais RL, Gibbs AC, Mohan V, Jaeger EP. Comparison of virtual screening programs. Abstr Pap Am Chem Soc 2003; 226: U456-U456.
7. Kellenberger E, Rodrigo J, Muller P, Rognan D. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinformatics 2004; 57: 225-242.
8. 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: 935-949.
9. Kontoyianni M, Sokol GS, McClellan LM. Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening. J Comput Chem 2005; 26: 11-22.
10. Cummings MD, DesJarlais RL, Gibbs AC, Mohan V, Jaeger EP. Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. J Med Chem 2005; 48: 962-976.
11. Ngan SC, Inouye MT, Samudrala R. A knowledge-based scoring function based on residue triplets for protein structure prediction. Protein Eng Des Sel 2006; 19: 187-193.
12. Brown SP, Muchmore SW. High-throughput calculation of protein-ligand binding affinities: modification and adaptation of the MM-PBSA protocol to enterprise grid computing. J Chem Inf Model 2006; 46: 999-1005.
13. Kim R, Skolnick J. Assessment of programs for ligand binding affinity prediction. J Comput Chem 2008; 29: 1316-1331.
14. Taylor RD, Jewsbury PJ, Essex JW. A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2002; 16: 151-166.
15. Ewing TJA, Makino S, Skillman AG, Kuntz ID. DOCK 4.0: search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2001; 15: 411-428.
16. Hindle SA, Rarey M, Buning C, Lengauer T. Flexible docking under pharmacophore type constraints. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2002; 16: 129-149.
17. Glide. Schrodinger, LLC: Portland, OR; 2000.
18. 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.
19. Boehm HJ, Boehringer M, Bur D, Gmuender H, Huber W, Klaus W, Kostrewa D, Kuehne H, Luebbers T, Meunier-Keller N, Mueller F. Novel inhibitors of DNA gyrase: 3D structure based biased needle screening, hit validation by biophysical methods, and 3D guided optimization. A promising alternative to random screening. J Med Chem 2000; 43: 2664-2674.
20. Bonacci TM, Mathews JL, Yuan CJ, Lehmann DM, Malik S, Wu DQ, Font JL, Bidlack JM, Smrcka AV. Differential targeting of G beta gamma-subunit signaling with small molecules. Science 2006; 312: 443-446.
21. Warren GL, Andrews CW, Capelli AM, Clarke B, LaLonde J, Lambert MH, Lindvall M, Nevins N, Semus SF, Senger S, Tedesco G, Wall ID, Woolven JM, Peishoff CE, Head MS. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J Med Chem 2006; 49: 5912-5931.
22. Dullweber F, Stubbs MT, Musil D, Sturzebecher J, Klebe G. Factorising ligand affinity: a combined thermodynamic and crystallographic study of trypsin and thrombin inhibition. J Mol Biol 2001; 313: 593-614.
23. Czodrowski P, Sotriffer CA, Klebe G. Protonation changes upon ligand binding to trypsin and thrombin: structural interpretation based on pK(a) calculations and ITC experiments. J Mol Biol 2007; 367: 1347-1356.
24. Steuber H, Czodrowski P, Sotriffer CA, Klebe G. Tracing changes in protonation: a prerequisite to factorize thermodynamic data of inhibitor binding to aldose reductase. J Mol Biol 2007; 373: 1305-1320.
25. Polgar T, Magyar C, Simon I, Keseru GM. Impact of ligand protonation on virtual screening against ss-secretase (BACEI). J Chem Inf Model 2007; 47: 2366-2373.
26. Kalliokoski T, Salo HS, Lahtela-Kakkonen M, Poso A. The effect of ligand-based tautomer and protomer prediction on structure-based virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2009; 49: 2742-2748.
27. Ten Brink T, Exner TE. Influence of protonation, tautomeric, and stereoisomeric states on protein-ligand docking results. J Chem Inf Model 2009; 49: 1535-1546.
28. Alexov EG, Gunner MR. Incorporating protein conformational flexibility into the calculation of pH-dependent protein properties. Biophys J 1997; 72: 2075-2093.
29. Bashford D, Gerwert K. Electrostatic calculations of the pKa values of ionizable groups in bacteriorhodopsin. J Mol Biol 1992; 224: 473-486.
30. Li H, Robertson AD, Jensen JH. Very fast empirical prediction and rationalization of protein pKa values. Proteins 2005; 61: 704-721.
31. Bas DC, Rogers DM, Jensen JH. Very fast prediction and rationalization of pKa values for protein-ligand complexes. Proteins 2008; 73: 765-783.
32. Mason AC, Jensen JH. Protein-protein binding is often associated with changes in protonation state. Proteins 2008; 71: 81-91.
33. Madura JD, Briggs JM, Wade RC, Davis ME, Luty BA, Ilin A, Antosiewicz J, Gilson MK, Bagheri B, Scott LR, Mccammon JA. Electrostatics and diffusion of molecules in solution-simulations with the University of Houston Brownian Dynamics Program. Comput Phys Commun 1995; 91: 57-95.
34. Davies MN, Toseland CP, Moss DS, Flower DR. Benchmarking pK(a) prediction. BMC Biochem 2006; 7: 18.
35. Wisz MS, Hellinga HW. An empirical model for electrostatic interactions in proteins incorporating multiple geometry-dependent dielectric constants. Proteins 2003; 51: 360-377.
36. Mehler EL, Guarnieri F. A self-consistent, microenvironment modulated screened coulomb potential approximation to calculate pH-dependent electrostatic effects in proteins. Biophys J 1999; 77: 3-22.
37. Nielsen JE, Vriend G. Optimizing the hydrogen-bond network in Poisson-Boltzmann equation-based pK(a) calculations. Proteins 2001; 43: 403-412.
38. Meloun M, Bordovska S. Benchmarking and validating algorithms that estimate pK(a) values of drugs based on their molecular structures. Anal Bioanal Chem 2007; 389: 1267-1281.
39. Hansen NT, Kouskoumvekaki I, Jorgensen FS, Brunak S, Jonsdottir SO. Prediction of pH-dependent aqueous solubility of druglike molecules. J Chem Inf Model 2006; 46: 2601-2609.
40. Lee PH, Ayyampalayam SN, Carreira LA, Shalaeva M, Bhattachar S, Coselmon R, Poole S, Gifford E, Lombardo F. In silico prediction of ionization constants of drugs. Mol Pharm 2007; 4: 498-512.
41. Epik, version 1.6. Schrödinger, LLC: New York, NY; 2008.
42. Shelley JC, Cholleti A, Frye LL, Greenwood JR, Timlin MR, Uchimaya M. Epik: a software program for pK(a) prediction and protonation state generation for drug-like molecules. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2007; 21: 681-691.
43. Mitra R, Shyam R, Mitra I, Miteva MA, Alexov E. Calculating the protonation states of proteins and small molecules: implications to ligand-receptor interactions. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 2008; 4: 169-179.
44. Donnini S, Villa A, Groenhof G, Mark AE, Wierenga RK, Juffer AH. Inclusion of ionization states of ligands in affinity calculations. Proteins 2009; 76: 138-150.
45. Huang X, Zheng F, Crooks PA, Dwoskin LP, Zhan CG. Modeling multiple species of nicotine and deschloroepibatidine interacting with alpha4beta2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor: from microscopic binding to phenomenological binding affinity. J Am Chem Soc 2005; 127: 14401-14414.
46. Pospisil P, Ballmer P, Scapozza L, Folkers G. Tautomerism in computer-aided drug design. J Recept Signal Transduct Res 2003; 23: 361-371.
47. 1H-NMR study on the tautomerism of the imidazole ring of histidine residues. II. Microenvironments of histidine-12 and histidine-119 of bovine pancreatic ribonuclease A. Biochim Biophys Acta 1983; 742: 586-596.
48. Wang R, Fang X, Lu Y, Wang S. The PDBbind database: collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. J Med Chem 2004; 47: 2977-2980.
49. Wang R, Fang X, Lu Y, Yang CY, Wang S. The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates. J Med Chem 2005; 48: 4111-4119.
50. Gao C, Park MS, Stern HA. Accounting for ligand conformational restriction in calculations of protein-ligand binding affinities. Biophys J 2010; 98: 901-910.
51. He Y, Xu J, Pan XM. A statistical approach to the prediction of pK(a) values in proteins. Proteins 2007; 69: 75-82.
52. Gaussian 03. Revision C. 02; Gaussian, Inc.: Wallingford, CT; 2004.
53. Cammi R, Mennucci B, Tomasi J. On the calculation of local field factors for microscopic static hyperpolarizabilities of molecules in solution with the aid of quantum-mechanical methods. J Phys Chem A 1998; 102: 870-875.
54. Cammi R, Mennucci B, Tomasi J. An attempt to bridge the gap between computation and experiment for nonlinear optical properties: macroscopic susceptibilities in solution? J Phys Chem A 2000; 104: 4690-4698.