Statistical potential for modeling and ranking of protein-ligand interactions

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 51, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 3078-3092

  Fan, Hao ^a   Schneidman Duhovny, Dina ^a   Irwin, John J ^a   Dong, Guangqiang ^a   Shoichet, Brian K ^a,b   Sali, Andrej ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATOMS; BINDING SITES; COMPLEXATION; CRYSTAL ATOMIC STRUCTURE; GEOMETRY; LEARNING TO RANK; MEAN SQUARE ERROR; MOLECULES; PROBABILITY; PROTEINS; WELL TESTING;

CRYSTALLOGRAPHIC STRUCTURE; INTEGRATIVE MODELING; PROTEIN-BINDING SITES; PROTEIN-LIGAND COMPLEXES; PROTEIN-LIGAND INTERACTIONS; ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERRORS; STATISTICAL POTENTIAL; TRAINING AND TESTING;

LIGANDS;

LIGAND; PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BINDING SITE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; CONFORMATION; HUMAN; METABOLISM; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; BINDING SITES; HUMANS; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MOLECULAR CONFORMATION; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS;

EID: 84555220606     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci200377u     Document Type: Article

References (128)

1. Brooijmans, N.; Kuntz, I. D. Molecular recognition and docking algorithms Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 2003, 32, 335-373
2. Leach, A. R.; Shoichet, B. K.; Peishoff, C. E. Prediction of protein-ligand interactions. Docking and scoring: Successes and gaps J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49 (20) 5851-5855
3. Klebe, G. Virtual ligand screening: strategies, perspectives and limitations Drug Discovery Today 2006, 11 (13-14) 580-594
4. Gilson, M. K.; Zhou, H. X. Calculation of protein-ligand binding affinities Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 2007, 36, 21-42
5. Jain, A. N. Scoring functions for protein-ligand docking Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 2006, 7 (5) 407-420
6. de Azevedo, W. F.; Dias, R. Evaluation of ligand-binding affinity using polynomial empirical scoring functions Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2008, 16 (20) 9378-9382
7. Dominy, B. N. Molecular recognition and binding free energy calculations in drug development Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2008, 9 (2) 87-95
8. Rester, U. Dock around the clock-Current status of small molecule docking and scoring QSAR Comb. Sci. 2006, 25 (7) 605-615
9. Coupez, B.; Lewis, R. A. Docking and scoring-Theoretically easy, practically impossible? Curr. Med. Chem. 2006, 13 (25) 2995-3003
10. Ferrara, P.; Gohlke, H.; Price, D. J.; Klebe, G.; Brooks, C. L. Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47 (12) 3032-3047
11. Wang, R. X.; Lu, Y. P.; Wang, S. M. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46 (12) 2287-2303
12. Gohlke, H.; Klebe, G. Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2002, 41 (15) 2645-2676
13. Shoichet, B. K.; McGovern, S. L.; Wei, B. Q.; Irwin, J. J. Lead discovery using molecular docking Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2002, 6 (4) 439-446
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.; Kollman, P. A. A 2nd Generation Force-Field for the Simulation of Proteins, Nucleic-Acids, and Organic-Molecules J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117 (19) 5179-5197
15. Jorgensen, W. L.; Maxwell, D. S.; TiradoRives, J. Development and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118 (45) 11225-11236
16. Daura, X.; Mark, A. E.; van Gunsteren, W. F. Parametrization of aliphatic CHn united atoms of GROMOS96 force field J. Comput. Chem. 1998, 19 (5) 535-547
17. 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.; Shenkin, P. S. 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
18. Halgren, T. A. Merck molecular force field. 5. Extension of MMFF94 using experimental data, additional computational data, and empirical rules J. Comput. Chem. 1996, 17 (5-6) 616-641
19. Meng, E. C.; Shoichet, B. K.; Kuntz, I. D. Automated Docking with Grid-Based Energy Evaluation J. Comput. Chem. 1992, 13 (4) 505-524
20. Zou, X. Q.; Sun, Y. X.; Kuntz, I. D. Inclusion of solvation in ligand binding free energy calculations using the generalized-born model J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121 (35) 8033-8043
21. Nevins, N.; Lii, J. H.; Allinger, N. L. Molecular mechanics (MM4) calculations on conjugated hydrocarbons J. Comput. Chem. 1996, 17 (5-6) 695-729
22. Clark, M.; Cramer, R. D.; Vanopdenbosch, N. Validation of the General-Purpose Tripos 5.2 Force-Field J. Comput. Chem. 1989, 10 (8) 982-1012
23. Oostenbrink, C.; Villa, A.; Mark, A. E.; Van Gunsteren, W. F. A biomolecular force field based on the free enthalpy of hydration and solvation: The GROMOS force-field parameter sets 53A5 and 53A6 J. Comput. Chem. 2004, 25 (13) 1656-1676
24. Shoichet, B. K.; Leach, A. R.; Kuntz, I. D. Ligand solvation in molecular docking Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 1999, 34 (1) 4-16
25. Mysinger, M. M.; Shoichet, B. K. Rapid Context-Dependent Ligand Desolvation in Molecular Docking J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50 (9) 1561-1573
26. Morris, G. M.; Goodsell, D. S.; Halliday, R. S.; Huey, R.; Hart, W. E.; Belew, R. K.; Olson, A. J. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function J. Comput. Chem. 1998, 19 (14) 1639-1662
27. Muegge, I.; Martin, Y. C. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: A simplified potential approach J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42 (5) 791-804
28. Mitchell, J. B. O.; Laskowski, R. A.; Alex, A.; Forster, M. J.; Thornton, J. M. BLEEP-Potential of mean force describing protein-ligand interactions: II. Calculation of binding energies and comparison with experimental data J. Comput. Chem. 1999, 20 (11) 1177-1185
29. Mitchell, J. B. O.; Laskowski, R. A.; Alex, A.; Thornton, J. M. BLEEP-Potential of mean force describing protein-ligand interactions: I. Generating potential J. Comput. Chem. 1999, 20 (11) 1165-1176
30. Gohlke, H.; Hendlich, M.; Klebe, G. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions J. Mol. Biol. 2000, 295 (2) 337-356
31. Gehlhaar, D. K.; Verkhivker, G. M.; Rejto, P. A.; Sherman, C. J.; Fogel, D. B.; Fogel, L. J.; Freer, S. T. Molecular Recognition of the Inhibitor Ag-1343 by Hiv-1 Protease-Conformationally Flexible Docking by Evolutionary Programming Chem. Biol. 1995, 2 (5) 317-324
32. Stahl, M.; Rarey, M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44 (7) 1035-1042
33. Ishchenko, A. V.; Shakhnovich, E. I. SMall molecule growth 2001 (SMoG2001): An improved knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45 (13) 2770-2780
34. Ozrin, V. D.; Subbotin, M. V.; Nikitin, S. M. PLASS: Protein-ligand affinity statistical score-a knowledge-based force-field model of interaction derived from the PDB J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2004, 18 (4) 261-270
35. Velec, H. F. G.; Gohlke, H.; Klebe, G. 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. 2005, 48 (20) 6296-6303
36. Kirtay, C. K.; Mitchell, J. B. O.; Lumley, J. A. Knowledge based potentials: the reverse Boltzmann methodology, virtual screening and molecular weight dependence QSAR Comb. Sci. 2005, 24 (4) 527-536
37. Catana, C.; Stouten, P. F. W. Novel, customizable scoring functions, parameterized using N-PLS, for structure-based drug discovery J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47 (1) 85-91
38. Huang, S. Y.; Zou, X. Q. An iterative knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions: I. Derivation of interaction potentials J. Comput. Chem. 2006, 27 (15) 1866-1875
39. Huang, S. Y.; Zou, X. Q. An iterative knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions: II. Validation of the scoring function J. Comput. Chem. 2006, 27 (15) 1876-1882
40. Huang, S. Y.; Zou, X. Q. Inclusion of Solvation and Entropy in the Knowledge-Based Scoring Function for Protein-Ligand Interactions J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50 (2) 262-273
41. Murray, C. W.; Auton, T. R.; Eldridge, M. D. Empirical scoring functions. II. The testing of an empirical scoring function for the prediction of ligand-receptor binding affinities and the use of Bayesian regression to improve the quality of the model J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1998, 12 (5) 503-519
42. Eldridge, M. D.; Murray, C. W.; Auton, T. R.; Paolini, G. V.; Mee, R. P. 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. 1997, 11 (5) 425-445
43. Olson, A. J.; Morris, G. M.; Goodsell, D. S.; Halliday, R. S.; Huey, R.; Hart, W. E.; Belew, R. K. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function J. Comput. Chem. 1998, 19 (14) 1639-1662
44. Wang, S. M.; Wang, R. X.; Lai, L. H. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16 (1) 11-26
45. Hu, X.; Balaz, S.; Shelver, W. H. A practical approach to docking of zinc metalloproteinase inhibitors J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2004, 22 (4) 293-307
46. Krammer, A.; Kirchhoff, P. D.; Jiang, X.; Venkatachalam, C. M.; Waldman, M. LigScore: a novel scoring function for predicting binding affinities J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2005, 23 (5) 395-407
47. Antes, I.; Merkwirth, C.; Lengauer, T. POEM: Parameter optimization using ensemble methods: Application to target specific scoring functions J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45 (5) 1291-1302
48. Springer, C.; Adalsteinsson, H.; Young, M. M.; Kegelmeyer, P. W.; Roe, D. C. PostDOCK: A structural, empirical approach to scoring protein ligand complexes J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48 (22) 6821-6831
49. Linusson, A.; Lindstrom, A.; Pettersson, F.; Almqvist, F.; Berglund, A.; Kihlberg, J. Hierarchical PLS modeling for predicting the binding of a comprehensive set of structurally diverse protein-ligand complexes J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46 (3) 1154-1167
50. Klebe, G.; Sotriffer, C. A.; Sanschagrin, P.; Matter, H. SFCscore: Scoring functions for affinity prediction of protein-ligand complexes Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 2008, 73 (2) 395-419
51. Berman, H. M.; Westbrook, J.; Feng, Z.; Gilliland, G.; Bhat, T. N.; Weissig, H.; Shindyalov, I. N.; Bourne, P. E. The Protein Data Bank Nucleic Acids Res. 2000, 28 (1) 235-242
52. Allen, F. H. The Cambridge Structural Database: a quarter of a million crystal structures and rising Acta Crystallogr., Sect. B: Struct. Sci. 2002, 58, 380-388
53. Hendlich, M.; Lackner, P.; Weitckus, S.; Floeckner, H.; Froschauer, R.; Gottsbacher, K.; Casari, G.; Sippl, M. J. Identification of Native Protein Folds Amongst a Large Number of Incorrect Models-the Calculation of Low-Energy Conformations from Potentials of Mean Force J. Mol. Biol. 1990, 216 (1) 167-180
54. Colovos, C.; Yeates, T. O. Verification of Protein Structures-Patterns of Nonbonded Atomic Interactions Protein Sci. 1993, 2 (9) 1511-1519
55. Sippl, M. J. Boltzmann Principle, Knowledge-Based Mean Fields and Protein-Folding-an Approach to the Computational Determination of Protein Structures J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1993, 7 (4) 473-501
56. Furuichi, E.; Koehl, P. Influence of protein structure databases on the predictive power of statistical pair potentials Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 1998, 31 (2) 139-149
57. Kocher, J. P. A.; Rooman, M. J.; Wodak, S. J. Factors Influencing the Ability of Knowledge-Based Potentials to Identify Native Sequence-Structure Matches J. Mol. Biol. 1994, 235 (5) 1598-1613
58. Huang, E. S.; Subbiah, S.; Levitt, M. Recognizing Native Folds by the Arrangement of Hydrophobic and Polar Residues J. Mol. Biol. 1995, 252 (5) 709-720
59. Rooman, M. J.; Wodak, S. J. Are database-derived potentials valid for scoring both forward and inverted protein folding? Protein Eng. 1995, 8 (9) 849-858
60. Jernigan, R. L.; Bahar, I. Structure-derived potentials and protein simulations Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 1996, 6 (2) 195-209
61. Jones, D. T.; Thornton, J. M. Potential energy functions for threading Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 1996, 6 (2) 210-216
62. Miyazawa, S.; Jernigan, R. L. Residue-residue potentials with a favorable contact pair term and an unfavorable high packing density term, for simulation and threading J. Mol. Biol. 1996, 256 (3) 623-644
63. Moult, J. Comparison of database potentials and molecular mechanics force fields Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 1997, 7 (2) 194-199
64. Park, B.; Levitt, M. Energy functions that discriminate X-ray and near native folds from well-constructed decoys J. Mol. Biol. 1996, 258 (2) 367-92
65. Park, B. H.; Huang, E. S.; Levitt, M. Factors affecting the ability of energy functions to discriminate correct from incorrect folds J. Mol. Biol. 1997, 266 (4) 831-46
66. Reva, B. A.; Finkelstein, A. V.; Sanner, M. F.; Olson, A. J. Residue-residue mean-force potentials for protein structure recognition Protein Eng. 1997, 10 (8) 865-876
67. Simons, K. T.; Kooperberg, C.; Huang, E.; Baker, D. Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions J. Mol. Biol. 1997, 268 (1) 209-25
68. Vajda, S.; Sippl, M.; Novotny, J. Empirical potentials and functions for protein folding and binding Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 1997, 7 (2) 222-228
69. Gilis, D.; Rooman, M. Predicting protein stability changes upon mutation using database-derived potentials: Solvent accessibility determines the importance of local versus non-local interactions along the sequence J. Mol. Biol. 1997, 272 (2) 276-290
70. Samudrala, R.; Moult, J. An all-atom distance-dependent conditional probability discriminatory function for protein structure prediction J. Mol. Biol. 1998, 275 (5) 895-916
71. Betancourt, M. R.; Thirumalai, D. Pair potentials for protein folding: Choice of reference states and sensitivity of predicted native states to variations in the interaction schemes Protein Sci. 1999, 8 (2) 361-369
72. Jones, D. T. GenTHREADER: An efficient and reliable protein fold recognition method for genomic sequences J. Mol. Biol. 1999, 287 (4) 797-815
73. Rojnuckarin, A.; Subramaniam, S. Knowledge-based interaction potentials for proteins Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 1999, 36 (1) 54-67
74. Simons, K. T.; Ruczinski, I.; Kooperberg, C.; Fox, B. A.; Bystroff, C.; Baker, D. Improved recognition of native-like protein structures using a combination of sequence-dependent and sequence-independent features of proteins Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 1999, 34 (1) 82-95
75. Bastolla, U.; Vendruscolo, M.; Knapp, E. W. A statistical mechanical method to optimize energy functions for protein folding Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2000, 97 (8) 3977-3981
76. Chiu, T. L.; Goldstein, R. A. How to generate improved potentials for protein tertiary structure prediction: a lattice model study Proteins 2000, 41 (2) 157-63
77. Gatchell, D. W.; Dennis, S.; Vajda, S. Discrimination of near-native protein structures from misfolded models by empirical free energy functions Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 2000, 41 (4) 518-534
78. Lazaridis, T.; Karplus, M. Effective energy functions for protein structure prediction Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2000, 10 (2) 139-145
79. Vendruscolo, M.; Najmanovich, R.; Domany, E. Can a pairwise contact potential stabilize native protein folds against decoys obtained by threading? Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 2000, 38 (2) 134-148
80. Lu, H.; Skolnick, J. A distance-dependent atomic knowledge-based potential for improved protein structure selection Proteins 2001, 44 (3) 223-32
81. Melo, F.; Sanchez, R.; Sali, A. Statistical potentials for fold assessment Protein Sci. 2002, 11 (2) 430-48
82. Keasar, C.; Levitt, M. A novel approach to decoy set generation: designing a physical energy function having local minima with native structure characteristics J. Mol. Biol. 2003, 329 (1) 159-74
83. Zhou, H.; Zhou, Y. Distance-scaled, finite ideal-gas reference state improves structure-derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction Protein Sci. 2002, 11 (11) 2714-26
84. Zhou, H.; Zhou, Y. Erratum: Distance-scaled, finite ideal-gas reference state improves structure-derived potentials of mean force for structure selection and stability prediction Protein Sci. 2003, 12 (9) 2121
85. Betancourt, M. R.; Skolnick, J. Local propensities and statistical potentials of backbone dihedral angles in proteins J. Mol. Biol. 2004, 342 (2) 635-649
86. Buchete, N. V.; Straub, J. E.; Thirumalai, D. Development of novel statistical potentials for protein fold recognition Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2004, 14 (2) 225-232
87. Buchete, N. V.; Straub, J. E.; Thirumalai, D. Orientational potentials extracted from protein structures improve native fold recognition Protein Sci. 2004, 13 (4) 862-874
88. Wang, K.; Fain, B.; Levitt, M.; Samudrala, R. Improved protein structure selection using decoy-dependent discriminatory functions BMC Struct. Biol. 2004, 4 (1) 8
89. Zhang, C.; Liu, S.; Zhou, H.; Zhou, Y. The dependence of all-atom statistical potentials on structural training database Biophys. J. 2004, 86 (6) 3349-58
90. Chen, W. W.; Shakhnovich, E. I. Lessons from the design of a novel atomic potential for protein folding Protein Sci. 2005, 14 (7) 1741-1752
91. Fang, Q. J.; Shortle, D. A consistent set of statistical potentials for quantifying local side-chain and backbone interactions Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 2005, 60 (1) 90-96
92. Qiu, J.; Elber, R. Atomically detailed potentials to recognize native and approximate protein structures Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 2005, 61 (1) 44-55
93. Summa, C. M.; Levitt, M.; DeGrado, W. F. An atomic environment potential for use in protein structure prediction J. Mol. Biol. 2005, 352 (4) 986-1001
94. Dehouck, Y.; Gilis, D.; Rooman, M. A new generation of statistical potentials for proteins Biophys. J. 2006, 90 (11) 4010-4017
95. Eramian, D.; Shen, M. Y.; Devos, D.; Melo, F.; Sali, A.; Marti-Renom, M. A., A composite score for predicting errors in protein structure models. Protein Sci. 2006.
96. Lu, M. Y.; Dousis, A. D.; Ma, J. P. OPUS-PSP: An orientation-dependent statistical all-atom potential derived from side-chain packing J. Mol. Biol. 2008, 376 (1) 288-301
97. Wu, Y. H.; Lu, M. Y.; Chen, M. Z.; Li, J. L.; Ma, J. P. OPUS-Ca: A knowledge-based potential function requiring only C alpha positions Protein Sci. 2007, 16 (7) 1449-1463
98. Rykunov, D.; Fiser, A. New statistical potential for quality assessment of protein models and a survey of energy functions BMC Bioinf. 2010, 11
99. Huang, N.; Shoichet, B. K.; Irwin, J. J. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49 (23) 6789-6801
100. Shen, M. Y.; Sali, A. Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures Protein Sci. 2006, 15 (11) 2507-2524
101. Sippl, M. J. Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to the knowledge-based prediction of local structures in globular proteins J. Mol. Biol. 1990, 213 (4) 859-83
102. Sali, A.; Blundell, T. L. Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints J. Mol. Biol. 1993, 234 (3) 779-815
103. Fan, H.; Irwin, J. J.; Webb, B. M.; Klebe, G.; Shoichet, B. K.; Sali, A. Molecular Docking Screens Using Comparative Models of Proteins J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49 (11) 2512-2527
104. Lorber, D. M.; Shoichet, B. K. Flexible ligand docking using conformational ensembles Protein Sci. 1998, 7 (4) 938-950
105. Lorber, D. M.; Shoichet, B. K. Hierarchical docking of databases of multiple ligand conformations Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2005, 5 (8) 739-749
106. Irwin, J. J.; Shoichet, B. K.; Mysinger, M. M.; Huang, N.; Colizzi, F.; Wassam, P.; Cao, Y. Q. Automated Docking Screens: A Feasibility Study J. Med. Chem. 2009, 52 (18) 5712-5720
107. Hartshorn, M. J.; Verdonk, M. L.; Chessari, G.; Brewerton, S. C.; Mooij, W. T. M.; Mortenson, P. N.; Murray, C. W. Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance J. Med. Chem. 2007, 50 (4) 726-741
108. Rarey, M.; Kramer, B.; Lengauer, T.; Klebe, G. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm J. Mol. Biol. 1996, 261 (3) 470-489
109. Verkhivker, G. M.; Bouzida, D.; Gehlhaar, D. K.; Rejto, P. A.; Arthurs, S.; Colson, A. B.; Freer, S. T.; Larson, V.; Luty, B. A.; Marrone, T.; Rose, P. W. Deciphering common failures in molecular docking of ligand-protein complexes J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14 (8) 731-751
110. Sherman, W.; Day, T.; Jacobson, M. P.; Friesner, R. A.; Farid, R. Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49 (2) 534-553
111. Graves, A. P.; Brenk, R.; Shoichet, B. K. Decoys for docking J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48 (11) 3714-3728
112. Pham, T. A.; Jain, A. N. Customizing scoring functions for docking J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22 (5) 269-286
113. Pham, T. A.; Jain, A. N. Parameter estimation for scoring protein-ligand interactions using negative training data J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49 (20) 5856-5868
114. Kamat, S. S.; Fan, H.; Sauder, J. M.; Burley, S. K.; Shoichet, B. K.; Sali, A.; Raushel, F. M. Enzymatic Deamination of the Epigenetic Base N-6-Methyladenine J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133 (7) 2080-2083
115. Schlessingera, A.; Geiera, E.; Fan, H.; Irwin, J. J.; Shoichet, B. K.; Giacominia, K. M.; Sali, A. Structure-based discovery of prescription drugs that interact with the norepinephrine transporter, NET Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108 (38) 15810-15815
116. Carlsson, J.; Coleman, R. G.; Setola, V.; Irwin, J. J.; Fan, H.; Schlessinger, A.; Sali, A.; Roth, B. L.; Shoichet, B. K. Structure-based Ligand Discovery Against a Homology Model and X-ray Structure of the Dopamine D3 Receptor. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2011, 7 (11), 769-778.
117. Goble, A. M.; Fan, H.; Sali, A.; Raushel, F. M., The Discovery of New Enzymes: Cytokinin Deaminase. ACS Chem. Biol. 2011, 6 (10), 1036-1040.
118. Sali, A.; Blundell, T. L. Comparative Protein Modeling by Satisfaction of Spatial Restraints J. Mol. Biol. 1993, 234 (3) 779-815
119. Fiser, A.; Do, R. K. G.; Sali, A. Modeling of loops in protein structures Protein Sci. 2000, 9 (9) 1753-1773
120. Leslie, A. G. W.; Moody, P. C. E.; Shaw, W. V. Structure of Chloramphenicol Acetyltransferase at 1.75-a Resolution Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1988, 85 (12) 4133-4137
121. Lewendon, A.; Murray, I. A.; Shaw, W. V.; Gibbs, M. R.; Leslie, A. G. W. Evidence for Transition-State Stabilization by Serine-148 in the Catalytic Mechanism of Chloramphenicol Acetyltransferase Biochemistry (Mosc.) 1990, 29 (8) 2075-2080
122. Krishnan, R.; Zhang, E.; Hakansson, K.; Arni, R. K.; Tulinsky, A.; Lim-Wilby, M. S. L.; Levy, O. E.; Semple, J. E.; Brunck, T. K. Highly selective mechanism-based thrombin inhibitors: Structures of thrombin and trypsin inhibited with rigid peptidyl aldehydes Biochemistry-Us 1998, 37 (35) 12094-12103
123. Mctigue, M. A.; Davies, J. F.; Kaufman, B. T.; Kraut, J. Crystal-Structure of Chicken Liver Dihydrofolate-Reductase Complexed with Nadp+ and Biopterin Biochemistry (Mosc.) 1992, 31 (32) 7264-7273
124. Kurinov, I. V.; Harrison, R. W. Prediction of New Serine Proteinase-Inhibitors Nat. Struct. Biol. 1994, 1 (10) 735-743
125. Tondi, D.; Morandi, F.; Bonnet, R.; Costi, M. P.; Shoichet, B. K. Structure-based optimization of a non-beta-lactam lead results in inhibitors that do not up-regulate beta-lactamase expression in cell culture J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127 (13) 4632-4639
126. Powers, R. A.; Shoichet, B. K. Structure-based approach for binding site identification on AmpC beta-lactamase J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45 (15) 3222-3234
127. Xu, D.; Tsai, C. J.; Nussinov, R. Hydrogen bonds and salt bridges across protein-protein interfaces Protein Eng. 1997, 10 (9) 999-1012
128. Cramer, H. Mathematical methods of statistics; Princeton University Press: 1946; p 575.