Scoring functions

Structure-Based Drug Discovery

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 223-245

  Fenu, Luca A ^a   Lewis, Richard A ^b   Good, Andrew C ^c   Bodkin, Michael ^d   Essex, Jonathan W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^b NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

^c BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB   (United States)

^d ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052851599     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-4407-0_9     Document Type: Chapter

References (102)

1. Aja Y and Murcko M. A. 1995. Computational methods to predict binding free energy in ligand-receptor complexes. J. Med. Chem. 38(26), 4953-4967.
2. Andrews P. R., Craik D. J. and Martin J. L. 1984. Functional-group contributions to drug receptor interactions. J. Med. Chem. 27(12), 1648-1657.
3. Atkins P. W. 1998. Physical chemistry. 6th ed. Oxford University Press.
4. Bindewald E. and Skolnick J. 2005. A scoring function for docking ligands to lowresolution protein structures. J. Comput. Chem. 26(4), 374-383.
5. Bissantz C., Bernard P., Hibert M. and Rognan D. 2003. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. II. Are homology models of G-protein coupled receptors suitable targets? Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 50(1), 5-25.
6. Bissantz C., Folkers G. and Rognan D. 2000. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J. Med. Chem. 43(25), 4759-4767.
7. Bohm H. J. and Klebe G. 1996. What can we learn from molecular recognition in protein-ligand complexes for the design of new drugs? Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 35(22), 2589-2614.
8. Bohm H. J. and Stahl M. 1999. Rapid empirical scoring functions in virtual screening applications. Med. Chem. Res. 9(7-8), 445-462.
9. Bohm H. J. 1994. The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein ligand complex of known 3-dimensional structure. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 8(3), 243-256.
10. Bostrom J., Norrby P. O. and Liljefors T. 1998. Conformational energy penalties of protein-bound ligands. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 12(4), 383-396.
11. Brooks B. R., Bruccoleri R. E., Olafson B. D., States D. J., Swaminathan S. and Karplus M. 1983. Charmm - a program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J. Comput. Chem. 4(2), 187-217.
12. Charifson P. S., Corkery J. J., Murcko M. A. and Walters W. P. 1999. Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. J. Med. Chem. 42(25), 5100-5109.
13. Chuaqui C., Deng Z. and Singh J. 2005. Interaction profiles of protein kinase-inhibitor complexes and their application to virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 48(1), 121-133.
14. Cornell W. D., Cieplak P., Bayly C. I., Gould I. R., Merz K. M., Ferguson D. M., Spellmeyer D. C., Fox T., Caldwell J. W. and Kollman P. A. 1995. A 2nd generation force-field for the simulation of proteins, nucleic-acids, and organic-molecules. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 117(19), 5179-5197.
15. Deng Z., Chuaqui C. and Singh J. 2004 Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): A novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. J. Med. Chem. 47(2), 337-344.
16. De Witte R. S. and Shakhnovich E. I. 1996. SMoG: De Novo design method based on simple, fast, and accurate free energy estimates.1. Methodology and supporting evidence. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 118(47), 11733-11744.
17. De Witte R. S., Ishchenko A. V. and Shakhnovich E. I. 1997. SMoG: De novo design method based on simple, fast, and accurate free energy estimates.2. Case studies in molecular design. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119(20), 4608-4617.
18. Eldridge M. D., Murray C. W., Auton T. R., Paolini G. V. and Mee1 R. P. 1997. Empirical scoring functions.1. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 11(5), 425-445.
19. Ewing T. J. A., Makino S., Skillman A. G. and Kuntz I. D. 2001. DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 15(5), 411-428.
20. Feher M., Deretey E. and Roy S. 2003. BHB: A simple knowledge-based scoring function to improve the efficiency of database screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43(4), 1316-1327.
21. Ferrara P., Gohlke H., Price D., Klebe G. and Brooks C. L. 2004. Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. J. Med. Chem. 47(12), 3032-3047.
22. 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. et al. 2004. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 47(7), 1739-1749.
23. Gehlhaar D. K., Verkhivkerl G. M., Rejtol P. A. and Freer S. T. 1995. Molecular recognition of the inhibitor Ag-1343 by Hiv-1 Protease - conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. Chem. Biol. 2(5), 317-324.
24. Giordanetto F., Cotesta S., Catana C., Trosset J.-Y., Vulpetti A., Stouten P. F. W., and Kroemer R. T. 2004. Novel scoring functions comprising QXP, SASA, and protein side-chain entropy terms. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44(3), 882-893.
25. Gohlke H., Hendlich M. and Klebe G. 2000. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 295(2), 337-356.
26. Gohlke H., Hendlich M. and Klebe G. 2000. Predicting binding modes, binding affinities and 'hot spots' for protein-ligand complexes using a knowledge-based scoring function. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 20(1), 115-144.
27. Greer J., Erickson J. W., Baldwin J. J. and Varney M. D. 1994. Application of the 3-dimensional structures of protein target molecules in structure-based drug design. J. Med. Chem. 37(8), 1035-1054.
28. Gunther J., Bergner A., Hendlich M. and Klebe G. 2003. Utilising structural knowledge in drug design strategies: Applications using relibase. J. Mol. Biol. 326(2), 621-636.
29. Guo J. X., Hurley M. M., Wright J. B. and Lushington G. H. 2004. A docking score function for estimating ligand-protein interactions: Application to acetylcholinesterase inhibition. J. Med. Chem. 47(22), 5492-5500.
30. Halgren T. A., Murphy R. B., Friesner R. A., Beard H. S., Frye L. L., Pollard W. T. and Banks J. L. 2004. Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring.2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J. Med. Chem. 47(7), 1750-1759.
31. Halperin I., Ma B., Wolfson H. and Nussinov R. 2002. Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 47(4), 409-443.
32. Head R. D., Smythe M. L., Oprea T. I., Waller C. L., Green S. M. and Marshall G. R. 1996. VALIDATE: A new method for the receptor-based prediction of binding affinities of novel ligands. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 118(16), 3959-3969.
33. Hendlich M., Bergner A., Gunther J. and Klebe G. 2003. Relibase: Design and development of a database for comprehensive analysis of protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 326(2), 607-620.
34. Ishchenko A. V. and Shakhnovich E. I. 2001. SMall molecule growth (SMoG2001): An improved knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions. J. Med. Chem. 45(13), 2770-2780.
35. Jacobsson M., Lidén P., Stjernschantz E., Boström H. and Norinder U. 2003. Improving structure-based virtual screening by multivariate analysis of scoring data. J. Med. Chem. 46(26), 5781-5789.
36. Jeffrey G. A. and Saenger W. 1991. Hydrogen bonding in biological structures. Springer-Verlag.
37. Jones G., Willett P., Glen R. C., Leach A. R. and Taylor R. 1997. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J. Mol. Biol. 267(3), 727-748.
38. Kellenberger E., Rodrigo J., Muller P. and Rognan D. 2004. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins: Structure, Function and Bioinformatics 57(2), 225-242.
39. Klon A. E., Glick M., Thoma M., Acklin P. and Davies J. W. 2004. Finding more needles in the haystack: A simple and efficient method for improving high-throughput docking results. J. Med. Chem. 47(11), 2743-2749.
40. Kollman P. 1993. Free-energy calculations - applications to chemical and biochemical phenomena. Chem. Rev. 93(7), 2395-2417.
41. Kontoyianni M., McClellan L. M. and Sokol G. S. 2004. Evaluation of docking performance: Comparative data on docking algorithms. J. Med. Chem. 47(3), 558-565.
42. Krovat E. M. and Langer T. 2004. Impact of scoring functions on enrichment in docking-based virtual screening: An application study on renin inhibitors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44(3), 1123-1129.
43. Kubinyi H. 1997. QSAR and 3D QSAR in drug design. 1. Methodology. Drug Discovery Today 2(11), 457-467.
44. Kubinyi H. 1997. QSAR and 3D QSAR in drug design. 2. Applications and problems. Drug Discovery Today 2(12), 538-546.
45. Kuntz I. D., Blaney J. M., Oatley S. J., Langridge R. and Ferrin T. E. 1982. A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 161(2), 269-288.
46. Kuntz I. D., Chen K., Sharp K. A. and Kollman P. A. 1999. The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96(18), 9997-10002.
47. Laederach A. and Reilly P. J. 2003. Specific empirical free energy function for automated docking of carbohydrates to proteins. J. Comput. Chem. 24(14), 1748-1757.
48. Leach A. R. 2001. Molecular modelling: principles and applications. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall.
49. Lipinski C. A., Lombardo F., Dominy B. W. and Feeney P. J. 2001. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 46(1-3), 3-26.
50. Lipinski C. A., Lombardo B. W., Dominy P. J. and Feeney 1997. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 23(1-3), 3-25.
51. Liu H. Y., Kuntz I. D. and Zou X. Q. 2004. Pairwise GB/SA scoring function for structure-based drug design. J. Phys. Chem. B 108(17), 5453-5462.
52. Luo R. and Gilson M. K. 2000. Synthetic adenine receptors: Direct calculation of binding affinity and entropy. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 122(12), 2934-2937.
53. Majeux N., Scarsi M., Apostolakis J., Ehrhardt C. and Caflisch A. 1999. Exhaustive docking of molecular fragments with electrostatic solvation. Proteins: Structure Function and Genetics 37(1), 88-105.
54. Mancera R. L., Kallblad P. and Todorov N. P. 2004. Ligand-protein docking using a quantum stochastic tunneling optimization method. J. Comput. Chem. 25(6), 858-864.
55. Mardis K. L., Luo R. and Gilson M. K. 2001. Interpreting trends in the binding of cyclic ureas to HIV-1 protease. J. Mol. Biol. 309(2), 507-517.
56. Mark A. E. and Van Gunsteren W. F. 1994. Decomposition of the free-energy of a system in terms of specific interactions - implications for theoretical and experimental studies. J. Mol. Biol. 240(2), 167-176.
57. McMartin C. R. S. and Bohacek 1997. QXP: Powerful, rapid computer algorithms for structure-based drug design. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 11(4), 333-344.
58. Meng E. C., Shoichet B. K. and Kuntz I. D. 1992. Automated docking with grid-based energy evaluation. J. Comput. Chem. 13(4), 505-524.
59. Mitchell J. B. O., Laskowski R. A., Alex A. and Thornton J. M. 1999. BLEEP - Potential of mean force describing protein-ligand interactions: II. Calculation of binding energies and comparison with experimental data. J. Comput. Chem. 20(11), 1177-1185.
60. Mitchell J. B. O., Laskowski R. A., Alex A., Forster M. J. and Thornton J. M. 1999. BLEEP - Potential of mean force describing protein-ligand interactions: I. Generating potential. J. Comput. Chem. 20(11), 1165-1176.
61. Mizutani M. Y., Tomioka N. and Itai A. 1994. Rational automatic search method for stable docking models of protein and ligand. J. Mol. Biol. 243(2), 310-326.
62. Muegge I. Y. C. and Martin 1999. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: A simplified potential approach. J. Med. Chem. 42(5), 791-804.
63. Muegge I. 2000. A knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: Probing the reference state. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 20(1), 99-114.
64. Muegge I. 2001. Effect of ligand volume correction on PMF scoring. J. Comput. Chem. 22(4), 418-425.
65. Muegge I., Martin Y. C., Hajduk P. J. and Fesik S. W. 1999. Evaluation of PMF scoring in docking weak ligands to the FK506 binding protein. J. Med. Chem. 42(14), 2498-2503.
66. Muegge I. 1999. Protein-ligand docking with a knowledge-based scoring function. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society 218, U493-U493.
67. Muegge I. A. 2004. PMF scoring revisited. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society 228, ssU515-U515.
68. Muryshev A. E., Tarasov D. N., Butygin A. V., Butygina O. Y., Aleksandrov A. B. and Nikitin S. M. 2003. A novel scoring function for molecular docking. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 17, 597-605.
69. Nissink J. W. M., Murray C., Hartshorn M., Verdonk M. L., Cole J. C. and Taylor R. 2002. A new test set for validating predictions of protein-ligand interaction. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 49(4), 457-471.
70. Pan Y. P., Huang N., Cho S., MacKerell A. D. Jr. 2003. Consideration of molecular weight during compound selection in virtual target-based database screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43(1), 267-272.
71. Pearlman D. A. and Charifson P. S. 2001. Improved scoring of ligand-protein interactions using OWFEG free energy grids. J. Med. Chem. 44(4), 502-511.
72. Pearlman D. A. 1999. Free energy grids: a practical qualitative application of free energy perturbation to ligand design using the OWFEG method. J. Med. Chem. 42(21), 4313-4324.
73. Perola E., Walters W. P. and Charifson P. S. 2004. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 56(2), 235-249.
74. Raha K. and Merz K. M. 2004. A quantum mechanics-based scoring function: study of zinc ion-mediated ligand binding. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126(4), 1020-1021.
75. Raha K. and Merz K. M. 2005. Large-scale validation of a quantum mechanics based scoring function: predicting the binding affinity and the binding mode of a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes. J. Med. Chem. 48(14), 4558-4575.
76. Raha K. and Merz K. M. 2004. Zinc mediated ligand binding: a quantum mechanics based approach. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society 227, U1016-U1017.
77. Raha K., Van Der Vaart A. J., Riley K. E., Peters M. B., Westerhoff L. M., Kim H., Merz K. M. Jr. 2005. Pairwise decomposition of residue interaction energies using semiempirical quantum mechanical methods in studies of protein-ligand interaction. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127(18), 6583-6594.
78. Roche O., Kiyama R. and Brooks C. L. 2001. Ligand-protein database: Linking proteinligand complex structures to binding data. J. Med. Chem. 44(22), 3592-3598.
79. Shoichet B. K., Leach A. R. and Kuntz I. D. 1999. Ligand solvation in molecular docking. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 34(1), 4-16.
80. Smith R., Hubbard R. E., Gschwend D. A., Leach A. R. and Good A. C. 2003. Analysis and optimization of structure-based virtual screening protocols (3). New methods and old problems in scoring function design. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 22(1), 41-53.
81. Sotriffer C., Klebe G., Stahl M. and Bohm H. J. 2004. Docking and Scoring Functions/Virtual Screening, in Burger's Medicinal Chemistry and Drug Discovery. pp. 281-333.
82. Stahl M. and Rarey M. 2001. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 44(7), 1035-1042.
83. Sussman J. L., Abola E. E., Lin D., Jiang J., Manning N. O. and Priluskyl J. 1999. The protein data bank - Bridging the gap between the sequence and 3D structure world. Genetica 106(1-2), 149-158.
84. Taylor R. D., Jewsbury P. J. and Essex J. W. 2002. A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 16(3), 151-166.
85. Todorov N. P., Mancera R. L., Kallblad P. and Monthoux P. 2002. EasyDock: A new docking program for high-throughput screening and binding-mode search. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society 224, U345-U345.
86. Todorov N. P., Mancera R. L. and Monthoux P. H. 2003. A new quantum stochastic tunnelling optimisation method for protein-ligand docking. Chem. Phys. Letters 369(3-4), 257-263.
87. Velec H. F. G., Gohlke H. and Klebe G. 2005. DrugScore (CSD)-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(20), 6296-6303.
88. Verdonk M. L., Cole J. C., Hartshorn M. J., Murray C. W. and Taylor R. D. 2003. Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics 52(4), 609-623.
89. Verdonk M. L., Chessari G., Cole J. C., Hartshorn M. J., Murray C. W., Nissink J. W. M., Taylor R. D. and Taylor R. 2005. Modeling water molecules in protein-ligand docking using GOLD. J. Med. Chem. 48, 6504-6515.
90. Verdonk M. L., Berdini V., Hartshorn M. J., Mooij W. T. M., Murray C. W., Taylor R. D. and Watson P. 2004. Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: Avoiding artificial enrichment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44(3), 793-806.
91. Verkhivker G., Appelt K., Freer S. T. and Villafranca J. E. 1995. Empirical free-energy calculations of ligand-protein crystallographic complexes.1. Knowledge-based ligandprotein interaction potentials applied to the prediction of human-immunodeficiencyvirus-1 protease binding-affinity. Protein Eng. 8(7), 677-691.
92. Vieth M., Hirst J. D., Kolinski A. and Brooks C. L. 1998. Assessing energy functions for flexible docking. J. Comput. Chem. 19(14), 1612-1622.
93. Vigers G. P. A. and Rizzi J. P. 2004. Multiple active site corrections for docking and virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 47(1), 80-89.
94. Wang R. X. and Wang S. M. 2001. How does consensus scoring work for virtual library screening? An idealized computer experiment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41(5), 1422-1426.
95. Wang R. X., Lu Y., Fang X. and Wang S. 2004. An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein-ligand complexes. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44(6), 2114-2125.
96. Wang R. X., Lu Y., Fang X. and Wang S. 1998. SCORE: A new empirical method for estimating the binding affinity of a protein-ligand complex. J. Mol. Model. 4(12), 379-394.
97. Wang R. X., Fang X., Lu Y. and Wang S. 2004. The PDBbind database: Collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. J. Med. Chem. 47(12), 2977-2980.
98. Wang R. X., Fang X., Lu Y. and Wang S. 2005. The PDBbind database: Methodologies and updates. J. Med. Chem. 48(12), 4111-4119.
99. Wang R. X., Lai L. H. and Wang S. M. 2002. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 16(1), 11-26.
100. Wang R. X., Lu Y. P. and Wang S. M. 2003. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 46(12), 2287-2303.
101. Yang J. M. and Chen C. C. 2004. GEMDOCK: A generic evolutionary method for molecular docking. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 55(2), 288-304.
102. Zou X. Q., Sun Y. X. and Kuntz I. D. 1999. Inclusion of solvation in ligand binding free energy calculations using the generalized-born model. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 121(35), 8033-8043.