Improving molecular docking through eHiTS' tunable scoring function

Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

Volumn 25, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 1033-1051

  Ravitz, Orr ^a   Zsoldos, Zsolt ^a   Simon, Aniko ^a  

^a SimBioSys Inc   (Canada)

Author keywords

Binding affinity; Docking; eHiTS; Score tuning; Scoring function; Screening

Indexed keywords

FORECASTING; MOLECULAR MODELING;

BINDING AFFINITIES; DOCKING; EHITS; MOLECULAR DOCKING; PERFORMANCE; POSE PREDICTIONS; SCORE TUNING; SCORING FUNCTIONS; TUNABLES; VIRTUAL SCREENING;

BINDING ENERGY;

BETA SECRETASE 1; CYCLIN DEPENDENT KINASE 2;

ACCURACY; ALGORITHM; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; BINDING SITE; CALCULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MOLECULAR DOCKING; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCORING SYSTEM;

EID: 84855187626     PISSN: 0920654X     EISSN: 15734951     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10822-011-9482-5     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. P Englebienne N Moitessier 2009 Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 4. Are popular scoring functions accurate for this class of proteins? J Chem Inf Model 49 1568 1580 10.1021/ci8004308 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXlvFCku7w%3D
2. R Wang Y Lu X Fang S Wang 2004 An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44 2114 2125 10.1021/ci049733j 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXovVGqtLs%3D
3. GB McGaughey RP Sheridan CI Bayly JC Culberson C Kreatsoulas S Lindsley V Maiorov JF Truchon WD Cornell 2007 Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening J Chem Inf Model 47 1504 1519 10.1021/ci700052x 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXmvVOktLk%3D (Pubitemid 47210053)
4. GL Warren CW Andrews AM Capelli B Clarke J LaLonde MH Lambert M Lindvall N Nevins SF Semus S Senger G Tedesco ID Wall JM Woolven CE Peishof MS Head 2006 A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions J Med Chem 49 5912 5931 10.1021/jm050362n 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXnslOrtrY%3D (Pubitemid 44484938)
5. M Stahl M Rarey 2001 Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening J Med Chem 44 1035 1042 10.1021/jm0003992 1:CAS:528: DC%2BD3MXhsFKitro%3D (Pubitemid 32852130)
6. T Schulz-Gasch M Stahl 2003 Binding site characteristics in structure-based virtual screening: evaluation of current docking tools J Mol Model 9 47 57 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3sXivFyisbY%3D (Pubitemid 37240092)
7. M Kontoyianni LM McClellan GS Sokol 2004 Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms J Med Chem 47 558 565 10.1021/jm0302997 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXjt1Gk (Pubitemid 38129714)
8. P Ferrara H Gohlke DJ Price G Klebe CL Brooks III 2004 Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions J Med Chem 47 3032 3047 10.1021/jm030489h 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXjs1Sjsrk%3D (Pubitemid 38702700)
9. D Plewczynski M Łaźniewski R Augustyniak K Ginalski 2011 Can we trust docking results? Evaluation of seven commonly used programs on PDBbind database J Comput Chem 32 742 755 10.1002/jcc.21643 1:CAS:528: DC%2BC3MXosVemuw%3D%3D
10. A Oda K Tsuchida T Takakura N Yamaotsu S Hirono 2006 Comparison of consensus scoring strategies for evaluating computational models of protein-ligand complexes J Chem Inf Model 46 380 391 10.1021/ci050283k 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXht1Gju7zK (Pubitemid 43282129)
11. WD Cornell 2006 Recent evaluations of high throughput docking methods for pharmaceutical lead finding-consensus and caveats. [ed.] David C. Spellmeyer Annu Rep Comput Chem 2 297 323 10.1016/S1574-1400(06)02016-0 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXjslWqsrs%3D
12. AN Jain 2006 Scoring functions for protein-ligand docking J Comput Aided Mol Des 7 407 420 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28XhtVamsLrE (Pubitemid 44524490)
13. I Muegge YC Martin 1999 A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach J Med Chem 42 791 804 10.1021/jm980536j 1:CAS:528:DyaK1MXht1aksrk%3D (Pubitemid 29136170)
14. H Gohlke M Hendlich G Klebe 1999 Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions J Mol Biol 295 337 356 10.1006/jmbi.1999. 3371
15. K Tøndel E Anderssen F Drabløs 2006 Protein Alpha Shape (PAS) Dock: a new gaussian-based score function suitable for docking in homology modelled protein structures J Comput Aided Mol Des 20 131 144 10.1007/s10822-006-9041-7 (Pubitemid 44269784)
16. MD Eldridge CW Murray TR Auton GV Paolini RP Mee 1997 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 11 425 445 10.1023/A:1007996124545 1:CAS:528:DyaK2sXnsV2it7o%3D (Pubitemid 127505895)
17. R Wang L Lai S Wang 2002 Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction J Comput Aided Mol Des 16 11 26 10.1023/A:1016357811882 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD38XltlSqs7k%3D (Pubitemid 34855041)
18. TA Halgren RB Murphy RA Friesner HS Beard LL Frye WT Pollard JL Banks 2004 Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening J Med Chem 47 1750 1759 10.1021/jm030644s 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2cXhsFyit78%3D (Pubitemid 38380918)
19. M Rarey B Kramer T Langauer G Klebe 1996 A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm J Mol Biol 261 470 489 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0477 1:CAS:528:DyaK28XltlKisLo%3D (Pubitemid 26335901)
20. GM Verkhivker D Bouzida DK Gehlhaar PA Rejto S Arthurs AB Colson ST Freer V Larson BA Luty T Marrone PW Rose 2000 Deciphering common failures in molecular docking of ligand-protein complexes J Comput Aided Mol Des 14 731 751 10.1023/A:1008158231558 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3MXjtlSn
21. A Krammer PD Kirchhoff X Jiang CM Venkatachalam M Waldman 2005 LigScore: a novel scoring function for predicting binding affinities J Mol Graph Model 23 395 407 10.1016/j.jmgm.2004.11.007 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXitlChtrY%3D (Pubitemid 40386869)
22. G Jones P Willett RC Glen AR Leach R Taylor 1997 Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking J Mol Biol 267 727 748 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0897 1:CAS:528:DyaK2sXis1KntLo%3D (Pubitemid 27170693)
23. DS Goodsell AJ Olson 1990 Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing Proteins 8 195 202 10.1002/prot.340080302 1:CAS:528:DyaK3MXhsFKntbg%3D (Pubitemid 20363304)
24. RA Friesner JL Banks RB Murphy TA Halgren JJ Klicic DT Mainz MP Repasky EH Knoll DE Shaw M Shelley JK Perry P Francis PS Shenkin 2004 Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy J Med Chem 47 1739 1749 10.1021/jm0306430 1:CAS:528: DC%2BD2cXhsFyit74%3D (Pubitemid 38380917)
25. EC Meng BK Shoichet ID Kuntz 1992 Automated docking with grid-based energy evaluation J Comp Chem 13 505 524 10.1002/jcc.540130412 1:CAS:528:DyaK38Xit1Omt7c%3D
26. Z Zsoldos D Reid A Simon SB Sadjad AP Johnson 2007 eHiTS: a new fast, exhaustive flexible ligand docking system J Mol Graph Model 26 198 212 10.1016/j.jmgm.2006.06.002 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXntFygu7s%3D (Pubitemid 46977244)
27. Z Zsoldos D Reid A Simon SB Sadjad AP Johnson 2006 eHiTS: an innovative approach to the docking and scoring function problems Curr Protein Pept Sci 7 421 435 10.2174/138920306778559412 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28XhtVamsLrF (Pubitemid 44524491)
28. X Fradera RMA Knegtel J Mestres 2000 Similarity-driven flexible ligand docking Proteins 40 623 636 10.1002/1097-0134(20000901)40:4<623::AID- PROT70>3.0.CO;2-I 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXmtVWnsbc%3D (Pubitemid 30655893)
29. WTM Mooij ML Verdonk 2005 General and targetes statistical potentials for protein-ligand interactions Proteins 61 272 287 10.1002/prot.20588 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXhtFSrsbfJ (Pubitemid 41429135)
30. SL Kinnings N Liu PJ Tonge RM Jackson L Xie PE Bourne 2011 A machine learning-based method to improve docking scoring functions and its application to drug repurposing J Chem Inf Model 51 408 419 10.1021/ci100369f 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3MXhsVSitbs%3D
31. A Amini PJ Shrimpton SH Muggleton MJE Sternberg 2007 A general approach for developing system-specific functions to score protein-ligand docked complexes using support vector inductive logic programming Proteins 69 823 831 10.1002/prot.21782 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXhtl2qsbvP (Pubitemid 350210144)
32. Vriend G (1996) WHAT-CHECK. [Online] Radboud University, Nijmegen Medical Centre. http://swift.cmbi.ru.nl/gv/whatcheck/. Accessed 27 April 2011
33. GJ Kleywegt MR Harris J Zou TC Taylor A Wählby AT Jones 2004 The Uppsala electron-density server Acta Cryst D 60 2240 2249 10.1107/ S0907444904013253 (Pubitemid 41742776)
34. A Moscona 2005 Neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza N Engl J Med 353 1363 1373 10.1056/NEJMra050740 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXhtVGmtL3L (Pubitemid 41362704)
35. MJD Powell 1964 An efficient method for finding the minimum of a function of several variables without calculating derivatives Comput J 7 155 162 10.1093/comjnl/7.2.155
36. D Reid BS Sadjad Z Zsoldos A Simon 2008 LASSO-ligand activity by surface similarity order: a new tool for ligand based virtual screening J Comput Aided Mol Des 22 479 487 10.1007/s10822-007-9164-5 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXmtVSnt7o%3D
37. JJ Sutherland 2007 Lessons in molecular recognition 2: assessing and improving cross-docking accuracy J Chem Inf Model 47 2293 2302 10.1021/ci700253h 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXht1SgtbbP (Pubitemid 350275096)
38. N Huang BK Shoichet JJ Irwin 2006 Benchmarking sets for molecular docking J Med Chem 49 6789 6801 10.1021/jm0608356 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28XhtFehurzI (Pubitemid 44749746)
39. R Wang X Fang Y Lu S Wang 2004 The PDBbind database: collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures J Med Chem 47 2977 2980 10.1021/jm030580l 1:CAS:528: DC%2BD2cXjs1Sjs74%3D (Pubitemid 38702694)
40. R Wang X Fang Y Lu CY Yang S Wang 2005 The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates J Med Chem 48 4111 4119 10.1021/jm048957q 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXktlKisbg%3D (Pubitemid 40800619)
41. SL Cole R Vassar 2007 The Alzheimer's disease β-secretase enzyme, BACE1 Mol Neurodegener 2 22 46 10.1186/1750-1326-2-22
42. JB Cross DC Thompson BK Rai JC Baber K Yi Fan Y Hu C Humblet 2009 Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy J Chem Inf Model 49 1455 1474 10.1021/ci900056c 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXmsVOmt7g%3D
43. N Triballeau F Acher I Brabet JP Pin HO Bertrand 2005 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 2534 2547 10.1021/jm049092j 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXitVWrtLw%3D (Pubitemid 40520517)
44. JA Hanley BJ McNeil 1982 The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve Radiology 143 29 36 1:STN:280: DyaL387ltFyksQ%3D%3D (Pubitemid 12142173)
45. A Nicholls 2008 What do we know and when do we know it? J Comput Aided Mol Des 22 239 255 10.1007/s10822-008-9170-2 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXjsFOnsLY%3D
46. AC Good TI Oprea 2008 Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection? J Comput Aided Mol Des 22 169 178 10.1007/s10822-007-9167-2 1:CAS:528: DC%2BD1cXjsFOnsLo%3D
47. I Wallach R Lilien 2011 Virtual decoy sets for molecular docking benchmarks J Chem Inf Model 51 196 202 10.1021/ci100374f 1:CAS:528: DC%2BC3MXoslel
48. Carlson HA, Dunbar JB Jr, Gestwicki JE, Stuckey J, Showalter HD, Wang S (2009) CSAR-Community Structure-Activity Resource. [Online] University of Michigan. http://www.csardock.org/. Accessed 27 April 2011
49. S Raub A Steffen A Kamper CM Marian 2008 AIScore-chemically diverse empirical scoring function employing quantum chemical binding energies of hydrogen-bonded complexes J Chem Inf Model 48 1492 1510 10.1021/ci7004669 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXnvF2gurk%3D