Post-docking optimization and analysis of protein-ligand interactions of estrogen receptor alpha using AMMOS software

Current Computer-Aided Drug Design

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 83-94

  Pencheva, Tania ^a   Jereva, Dessislava ^a   Miteva, Maria A ^b,c   Pajeva, Ilza ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF BIOPHYSICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING   (Bulgaria)

^b INSERM   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

Author keywords

AMMOS; Binding site; Estrogen receptor; In silico screening; Protein flexibility; Protein ligand interactions

Indexed keywords

COMPLEXATION; LIGANDS; PROTEINS;

AMMOS; BINDING-SITES; CRITICAL STEPS; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; IN-SILICO SCREENING; POST-DOCKING OPTIMIZATIONS; PROTEIN FLEXIBILITY; PROTEIN-LIGAND INTERACTIONS; RATIONAL DRUG DESIGNS; VIRTUAL LIGAND SCREENING;

BINDING SITES;

ESTROGEN RECEPTOR ALPHA; LASOFOXIFENE; LIGAND; NAFOXIDINE; PROTEIN; RALOXIFENE; TAMOXIFEN; TETRAHYDROISOQUINOLINE;

ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; BINDING SITE; COMPUTER MODEL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DRUG SCREENING; MOLECULAR DOCKING;

EID: 84876861024     PISSN: 15734099     EISSN: 18756697     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/1573409911309010008     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abagyan, R.; Totrov, M. High-throughput docking for lead generation. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 2001, 5, 375-382.
2. Shoichet, B.K. Virtual screening of chemical libraries. Nature, 2004, 432, 862-865.
3. Meng, X.-Y.; Zhang, H.-X.; Mezei, M.; Cui, M. Molecular docking: a powerful approach for structure-based drug discovery. Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des., 2011, 7, 146-157
4. Leach, A.R.; Jhoti, H. Structure-based Drug Discovery; Springer: Berlin, 2007.
5. Bajorath, J. Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 2002, 1, 882-894.
6. DesJarlais, R.L.; Sheridan, R.P.; Seibel, G.L., Dixon, J.S., Kuntz, I.D.; Venkataraghavan, R. Using shape complementarity as an initial screen in designing ligands for a receptor binding site of known three-dimensional structure. J. Med. Chem., 1988, 31, 722-729.
7. Sperandio, O.; Villoutreix, B.O.; Miteva, M.A. Structure-Based Virtual Screening. In: In silico Lead Discovery. Miteva, M.A., Ed.; Bentham Science Publishers, 2011, pp. 20-46.
8. Miteva M.A.; Robert C.H.; Maréchal, J.D.; Perahia, D. Receptor Flexibility in Ligand Docking and Virtual Screening. In: In silico Lead Discovery. Miteva, M.A., Ed.; Bentham Science Publishers, 2011, pp. 99-117
9. Sperandio, O.; Mouawad, L.; Pinto, E.; Villoutreix, B.O.; Perahia, D.; Miteva, M.A. How to choose relevant multiple receptor conformations for virtual screening: a test case of Cdk2 and normal mode analysis. Eur. Biophys. J., 2010, 39, 1365-1372.
10. Cavasotto, C.N.; Singh, N. Docking and high throughput docking: successes and the challenge of protein flexibility. Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des., 2008, 4, 221-234.
11. Erickson, J.A.; Jalaie, M.; Robertson D.H.; Lewis, R.A.; Vieth, M. Lessons in molecular recognition: the effects of ligand and protein flexibility on molecular docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem., 2004, 47, 45-55.
12. Floriano, W.B.; Vaidehi, N.; Zamanakos, G.; Goddard, W.A. 3rd. HierVLS hierarchical docking protocol for virtual ligand screening of large-molecule databases. J. Med. Chem., 2004, 47, 56-71.
13. Jain, A.N. Surflex-Dock 2.1: robust performance from ligand energetic modeling, ring flexibility, and knowledge-based search. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 2007, 21, 281-306.
14. Perola, E.; Walters, W.P.; Charifson, P.S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins, 2004, 56, 235-249.
15. Huang, N.; Kalyanaraman, C.; Irwin, J.J.; Jacobson, M.P. Physics-based scoring of protein-ligand complexes: enrichment of known inhibitors in large-scale virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2006, 46, 243-253.
16. Huang, N.; Kalyanaraman, C.; Bernacki, K.; Jacobson, M.P. Molecular mechanics methods for predicting protein-ligand binding. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2006, 8, 5166-5177.
17. Koska, J.; Spassov, V.Z.; Maynard, A.J.; Yan, L.; Austin, N.; Flook, P.K.; Venkatachalam, C.M.; Fully automated molecular mechanics based induced fit protein-ligand docking method. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2008, 48, 1965-1973.
18. Pencheva, T.; Lagorce, D.; Pajeva, I.; Villoutreix, B.; Miteva, M. AMMOS: automated molecular mechanics optimization tool for in silico screening. BMC Bioinformatics, 2008, 9, 438.
19. Pencheva, T.; Lagorce, D.; Pajeva, I.; Villoutreix, B.O.; Miteva, M.A. AMMOS software: method and application. Methods Mol. Biol., 2012, 819, 127-141.
20. Weber, I.T.; Harrison, R.W. Molecular mechanics calculations on Rous sarcoma virus protease with peptide substrates. Protein Sci., 1997, 6, 2365-2374.
21. Weber, I.T.; Harrison, R.W. Molecular mechanics analysis of drug-resistant mutants of HIV protease. Protein Eng., 1999, 12, 469-474.
22. AMMP - Another Molecular Mechanics Program. http://www.cs.gsu.edu/~cscrwh/ammp/ammp.html (Accessed October 30, 2012)
23. Baxter, C.A.; Murray, C.W.; Waszkowycz, B.; Li, J.; Sykes, R.A.; Bone, R.G.; Perkins, T.D.; Wylie, W. New approach to molecular docking and its application to virtual screening of chemical databases. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2000, 40, 254-262.
24. Bissantz, C.; Folkers, G.; Rognan, D. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J. Med. Chem., 2000, 43, 4759-4767.
25. Miteva, M.A.; Lee, W.H.; Montes, M.O.; Villoutreix, B.O. Fast structure-based virtual ligand screening combining FRED, DOCK, and Surflex. J. Med. Chem., 2005, 48, 6012-6022.
26. Tsakovska, I.; Pajeva, I.; Alov, P.; Worth, A. Recent advances in the molecular modeling of estrogen receptor-mediated toxicity. Adv. Protein Chem. Struct. Biol., 2011, 85, 217-251.
27. Moroy, G.; Martiny, V.; Vayer, P.; Villoutreix, B.O.; Miteva, M.A. Towards in silico structure-based ADMET prediction in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today, 2012, 17, 44-55.
28. Dal Palú, A.; Spyrakis, F.; Cozzini, P. A new approach for investigating protein flexibility based on Constraint Logic Programming. The first application in the case of the estrogen receptor. Eur. J. Med. Chem., 2012, 49, 127-140.
29. Therrien, E.; Englebienne, P.; Arrowsmith, A.G.; Mendoza-Sanchez, R.; Corbeil, C.R.; Weill, N.; Campagna-Slater, V.; Moitessier, N. Integrating medicinal chemistry, organic/combinatorial chemistry, and computational chemistry for the discovery of selective estrogen receptor modulators with forecaster, a novel platform for drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2012, 52, 210-224.
30. Fang, H.; Tong, W.; Shi, L. M.; Blair, R.; Perkins, R.; Branham, W.; Hass, B.S.; Xie, Q.; Dial, S.L.; Moland, C.L.; Sheehan, D.M. Structure-activity relationships for a large diverse set of natural, synthetic, and environmental estrogens. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2001, 14, 280-294.
31. Pike, A.C. Lessons learnt from structural studies of the oestrogen receptor. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., 2006, 20, 1-14.
32. ChemBridge Corporation. http://chembridge.com/screening_libraries/diversity_libraries/ (Accessed October 30, 2012).
33. Lagorce, D.; Sperandio, O.; Galons, H.; Miteva, M.A.; Villoutreix, B.O. FAF-Drugs2: free ADME/tox filtering tool to assist drug discovery and chemical biology projects. BMC Bioinformatics, 2008, 9, 396.
34. BioXGEM.iGEMDOCK.er antagonist. http://gemdock.life.nctu.edu.tw/dock/result_er_lig.php (Accessed October 30, 2012)
35. Lagorce, D.; Pencheva, T.; Villoutreix, B.O.; Miteva, M.A. DG-AMMOS: a new tool to generate 3D conformation of small molecules using distance geometry and automated molecular mechanics optimization for in silico screening. BMC Chem. Biol., 2009, 9, 6.
36. Sauton N.; Lagorce, D.; Villoutreix, B.O.; Miteva, M.A. MS-DOCK: accurate multiple conformation generator and rigid docking protocol for multi-step virtual ligand screening. BMC Bioinformatics, 2008, 9, 184.
37. Moustakas, D.T.; Lang, P.T.; Pegg, S.; Pettersen, E.; Kuntz, I.D.; Brooijmans, N.; Rizzo, R.C. Development and validation of a modular, extensible docking program: DOCK 5. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 2006, 20, 601-619.
38. DOCK6. http://dock.compbio.ucsf.edu/DOCK_6/ (Accessed February 8, 2012).
39. Chemical Computing Group, Molecular Operating Environment, http://www.chemcomp.com (Accessed February 8, 2012)
40. Jereva, D.; Pajeva, I.; Pencheva, T. Data extraction module - a supplementary tool for AMMOS_ProtLig software package, Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 2012, 64, 266-271.
41. Laurie, A.T.; Jackson, R.M. Q-SiteFinder: an energy-based method for the prediction of protein-ligand binding sites. Bioinformatics, 2005, 21, 1908-1916.
42. Osguthorpe, D.J.; Sherman, W.; Hagler, A.T. Exploring protein flexibility: incorporating structural ensembles from crystal structures and simulation into virtual screening protocols. J. Phys. Chem. B, 2012, 116, 6952-6959.
43. Xu, M.; Lill, M.A. Utilizing experimental data for reducing ensemble size in flexible-protein docking. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2012, 52, 187-198.