Scoring functions for prediction of protein-ligand interactions

Current Pharmaceutical Design

Volumn 19, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 2174-2182

  Wang, Jui Chih ^a   Lin, Jung Hsin ^a,b,c  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b RESEARCH CENTER FOR APPLIED SCIENCES   (Taiwan)

^c INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Binding free energy; Computational drug design; Force field; Protein ligand interactions; Scoring function

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; PROTEIN;

BINDING AFFINITY; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG TARGETING; FORCE; LIGAND BINDING; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN FUNCTION; PROTEIN INTERACTION; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM;

ANIMALS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BINDING SITES; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASES, CHEMICAL; DATABASES, PROTEIN; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; HUMANS; KINETICS; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR CONFORMATION; MOLECULAR DOCKING SIMULATION; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHARMACOLOGY; PROTEINS;

EID: 84877823202     PISSN: 13816128     EISSN: 18734286     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/1381612811319120005     Document Type: Review

References (88)

1. Brooijmans N, Kuntz ID. Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure 2003; 32: 335-73.
2. Huang SY, Grinter SZ, Zou XQ. Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein-ligand docking: recent advances and future directions. Physical Chem Chemical Physics 2010; 12: 12899-908.
3. Yuriev E, Agostino M, Ramsland PA. Challenges and advances in computational docking: 2009 in review. J Molecular Recognition 2011; 24: 149-64.
4. Jain AN. Scoring functions for protein-ligand docking. Curr Protein Peptide Sci 2006; 7: 407-20.
5. Moitessier N, Englebienne P, Lee D, Lawandi J, Corbeil CR. Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go. Br J Pharmacol 2008; 153: S7-26.
6. Gohlke H, Klebe G. Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. Angewandte Chemie-International Edition 2002; 41: 2645-76.
7. Halperin I, Ma BY, Wolfson H, Nussinov R. Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins-Structure Function Genetics 2002; 47: 409-43.
8. Cheng TJ, Li QL, Zhou ZG, Wang YL, Bryant SH. Structure-Based Virtual Screening for Drug Discovery: a Problem-Centric Review. Aaps J 2012; 14: 133-41.
9. Zhong SJ, Zhang YP, Xiu ZL. Rescoring ligand docking poses. Current Opinion Drug Discov Development 2010; 13: 326-34.
10. Meng EC, Shoichet BK, Kuntz ID. Automated Docking with Grid-Based Energy Evaluation. J Computational Chem 1992; 13: 505-24.
11. Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC. Molecular Recognition of Receptor-Sites Using a Genetic Algorithm with a Description of Desolvation. J Mol Biol 1995; 245: 43-53.
12. Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC, Leach AR, Taylor R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J M Biol 1997; 267: 727-48.
13. Yin S, Biedermannova L, Vondrasek J, Dokholyan NV. MedusaScore: An accurate force field-based scoring function for virtual drug screening. J Chem Information Modeling 2008; 48: 1656-62.
14. Bohm HJ. The Development of a Simple Empirical Scoring Function to Estimate the Binding Constant for a Protein Ligand Complex of Known 3-Dimensional Structure. J Computer-Aided Mol Des 1994; 8: 243-56.
15. Bohm HJ. Prediction of binding constants of protein ligands: A fast method for the prioritization of hits obtained from de novo design or 3D database search programs. J Computer-Aided Molecular Des 1998; 12: 309-23.
16. Eldridge MD, Murray CW, Auton TR, Paolini GV, Mee RP. Empirical scoring functions.1. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes. J Computer-Aided Molecular Des 1997; 11: 425-45.
17. Wang RX, Lai LH, Wang SM. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction. J Computer-Aided Molecular Des 2002; 16: 11-26.
18. Sotriffer CA, Sanschagrin P, Matter H, Klebe G. SFCscore: Scoring functions for affinity prediction of protein-ligand complexes. Proteins-Structure Function Bioinformatics 2008; 73: 395-419.
19. Korb O, Stutzle T, Exner TE. Empirical Scoring Functions for Advanced Protein-Ligand Docking with PLANTS. J Chem Information Modeling 2009; 49: 84-96.
20. Reulecke I, Lange G, Albrecht J, Klein R, Rarey M. Towards an integrated description of hydrogen bonding and dehydration: Decreasing false positives in virtual screening with the HYDE scoring function. Chemmedchem 2008; 3: 885-97.
21. Schneider N, Hindle S, Lange G, Klein R, Albrecht J, Briem H, Beyer K, Claußen H, Gastreich M, Lemmen C, Rarey M. Substantial improvements in large-scale redocking and screening using the novel HYDE scoring function. J Computer-Aided Molecular Des 2012; 26: 701-23.
22. Englebienne P, Moitessier N. Docking Ligands into Flexible and Solvated Macromolecules. 5. Force-Field-Based Prediction of Binding Affinities of Ligands to Proteins. J Chem Information Modeling 2009; 49: 2564-71.
23. Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Halliday RS, et al. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J Computational Chem 1998; 19: 1639-62.
24. Huey R, Morris GM, Olson AJ, Goodsell DS. A semiempirical free energy force field with charge-based desolvation. J Computational Chem 2007; 28: 1145-52.
25. Wang JC, Lin JH, Chen CM, Perryman AL, Olson AJ. Robust Scoring Functions for Protein-Ligand Interactions with Quantum Chemical Charge Models. J Chem Information Modeling 2011; 51: 2528-37.
26. Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, et al. Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 2004; 47: 1739-49.
27. Friesner RA, Murphy RB, Repasky MP, et al. Extra precision glide: Docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes. J Med Chem 2006; 49: 6177-96.
28. Gohlke H, Hendlich M, Klebe G. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol 2000; 295: 337-56.
29. Velec HFG, Gohlke H, Klebe G. DrugScore(CSD)-knowledgebased 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: 6296-303.
30. Muegge I, Martin YC. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: A simplified potential approach. J Med Chem 1999; 42: 791-804.
31. Muegge I. A knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: Probing the reference state. Perspectives Drug Discov Des 2000; 20: 99-114.
32. Muegge I. Effect of ligand volume correction on PMF scoring. J Computational Chem 2001; 22: 418-25.
33. Fan H, Schneidman-Duhovny D, Irwin JJ, Dong GQ, Shoichet BK, Sail A. Statistical Potential for Modeling and Ranking of Protein-Ligand Interactions. J Chem Information Modeling 2011; 51: 3078-92.
34. Xie ZR, Hwang MJ. An interaction-motif-based scoring function for protein-ligand docking. Bmc Bioinformatics 2010; 11.
35. Ballester PJ, Mitchell JBO. A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking. Bioinformatics 2010; 26: 1169-75.
36. Das S, Krein MP, Breneman CM. Binding Affinity Prediction with Property-Encoded Shape Distribution Signatures. J Chem Information Modeling 2010; 50: 298-308.
37. Weiner SJ, Kollman PA, Case DA, et al. A New Force-Field for Molecular Mechanical Simulation of Nucleic-Acids and Proteins. J Am Chem Soc 1984; 106: 765-84.
38. Shoichet BK, Leach AR, Kuntz ID. Ligand solvation in molecular docking. Proteins-Structure Function and Genetics 1999; 34: 4-16.
39. Neria E, Fischer S, Karplus M. Simulation of activation free energies in molecular systems. J Chemical Physics 1996; 105: 1902-21.
40. Lazaridis T, Karplus M. Effective energy function for proteins in solution. Proteins-Structure Function and Genetics 1999; 35: 133-52.
41. Kortemme T, Morozov AV, Baker D. An orientation-dependent hydrogen bonding potential improves prediction of specificity and structure for proteins and protein-protein complexes. J Mol Biol 2003; 326: 1239-59.
42. Ding F, Dokholyan NV. Emergence of protein fold families through rational design. Plos Computational Biol 2006; 2: 725-33.
43. Fersht AR, Shi JP, Knilljones J, Lowe DM, Wilkinson AJ, Blow DM, Brick P, Carter P, Waye MMY, Winter G. Hydrogen-bonding and biological specificity analyzed by protein engineering. Nature 1985; 314: 235-8.
44. Shirley BA, Stanssens P, Hahn U, Pace CN. Contribution of hydrogen-bonding to the conformational stability of ribonuclease-T1. Biochemistry 1992; 31: 725-32.
45. Sharp KA, Nicholls A, Friedman R, Honig B. Extracting hydrophobic free-energies from experimental-data-relationship to protein folding and theoretical-models. Biochemistry 1991; 30: 9686-97.
46. Searle MS, Williams DH. The cost of conformational order-entropy changes in molecular associations. J Am Chem Soc 1992; 114: 10690-7.
47. Murray CW, Auton TR, Eldridge MD. 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 Computer-Aided Molecular Des 1998; 12: 503-19.
48. Hawkins DM. The problem of overfitting. J Chem Information Computer Sci 2004; 44: 1-12.
49. Gehlhaar DK, Verkhivker GM, Rejto PA, et al. Molecular Recognition of the Inhibitor Ag-1343 by Hiv-1 Protease-Conformationally Flexible Docking by Evolutionary Programming. Chem Biol 1995; 2: 317-24.
50. Bayly CI, Cieplak P, Cornell WD, Kollman PA. A well-behaved electrostatic potential based method using charge restraints for deriving atomic charges-the resp model. J Physical Chem 1993; 97: 10269-80.
51. Jakalian A, Bush BL, Jack DB, Bayly CI. Fast, efficient generation of high-quality atomic Charges. AM1-BCC model: I. Method. J Computational Chem 2000; 21: 132-46.
52. Lin JH. Accommodating Protein Flexibility for Structure-Based Drug Design. Curr Topics Med Chem 2011; 11: 171-8.
53. Lin JH, Perryman AL, Schames JR, McCammon JA. Computational drug design accommodating receptor flexibility: The relaxed complex scheme. J Am Chem Soc 2002; 124: 5632-3.
54. Sippl MJ. 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: 859-83.
55. Sippl MJ. Boltzmann Principle, Knowledge-Based Mean Fields and Protein-Folding-an Approach to the Computational Determination of Protein Structures. J Computer-Aided Molecular Des 1993; 7: 473-501.
56. Shen MY, Sali A. Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures. Protein Sci 2006; 15: 2507-24.
57. Cheng TJ, Li X, Li Y, Liu ZH, Wang RX. Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on a Diverse Test Set. J Chem Information Modeling 2009; 49: 1079-93.
58. Marsden PM, Puvanendrampillai D, Mitchell JBO, Glen RC. Predicting protein-ligand binding affinities: a low scoring game? Organic & Biomolecular Chem 2004; 2: 3267-73.
59. Wang RX, Lu YP, Fang XL, Wang SM. An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 proteinligand complexes. J Chem Information Computer Sci 2004; 44: 2114-25.
60. Wang RX, Lu YP, Wang SM. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J Med Chem 2003; 46: 2287-303.
61. Dunbar JB, Smith RD, Yang CY, Ung PMU, Lexa KW, Khazanov NA, Stuckey JA, Wang SM, Carlson HA. CSAR Benchmark Exercise of 2010: Selection of the Protein-Ligand Complexes. J Chem Information Modeling 2011; 51: 2036-46.
62. Smith RD, Dunbar JB, Ung PMU, et al. CSAR Benchmark Exercise of 2010: Combined Evaluation Across All Submitted Scoring Functions. J Chem Information Modeling 2011; 51: 2115-31.
63. Warren GL, Andrews CW, Capelli AM, et al. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J Med Chem 2006; 49: 5912-31.
64. Kellenberger E, Rodrigo J, Muller P, Rognan D. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins-Structure Function Bioinformatics 2004; 57: 225-42.
65. Li X, Li Y, Cheng TJ, Liu ZH, Wang RX. Evaluation of the Performance of Four Molecular Docking Programs on a Diverse Set of Protein-Ligand Complexes. J Computational Chem 2010; 31: 2109-25.
66. Zhou ZY, Felts AK, Friesner RA, Levy RM. Comparative performance of several flexible docking programs and scoring functions: Enrichment studies for a diverse set of pharmaceutically relevant targets. J Chem Information Modeling 2007; 47: 1599-608.
67. Chen HM, Lyne PD, Giordanetto F, Lovell T, Li J. On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors (vol 46, pg 401 2006). J Chem Information Modeling 2008; 48: 246-6.
68. Cummings MD, DesJarlais RL, Gibbs AC, Mohan V, Jaeger EP. Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. J Med Chem 2005; 48: 962-76.
69. Kontoyianni M, McClellan LM, Sokol GS. Evaluation of docking performance: Comparative data on docking algorithms. J Med Chem 2004; 47: 558-65.
70. Perola E, Walters WP, Charifson PS. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins-Structure Function Bioinformatics 2004; 56: 235-49.
71. Xing L, Hodgkin E, Liu Q, Sedlock D. Evaluation and application of multiple scoring functions for a virtual screening experiment. J Computer-Aided Mol Des 2004; 18: 333-44.
72. Bursulaya BD, Totrov M, Abagyan R, Brooks CL. Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking. J Computer-Aided Molecular Des 2003; 17: 755-63.
73. Stahl M, Rarey M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J Med Chem 2001; 44: 1035-42.
74. 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: 4759-67.
75. Huang SY, Zou XQ. An iterative knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions: II. Validation of the scoring function. J Computational Chem 2006; 27: 1876-82.
76. Huang SY, Zou XQ. Inclusion of Solvation and Entropy in the Knowledge-Based Scoring Function for Protein-Ligand Interactions. J Chem Information Modeling 2010; 50: 262-73.
77. Wang RX, Fang XL, Lu YP, Wang SM. The PDBbind database: Collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. J Med Chem 2004; 47: 2977-80.
78. Wang RX, Fang XL, Lu YP, Yang CY, Wang SM. The PDBbind database: Methodologies and updates. J Med Chem 2005; 48: 4111-9.
79. Kramer C, Gedeck P. Leave-Cluster-Out Cross-Validation Is Appropriate for Scoring Functions Derived from Diverse Protein Data Sets. J Chem Information Modeling 2010; 50: 1961-9.
80. Ballester PJ, Mitchell JBO. Comments on "Leave-Cluster-Out Cross-Validation Is Appropriate for Scoring Functions Derived from Diverse Protein Data Sets": Significance for the Validation of Scoring Functions. J Chem Information Modeling 2011; 51: 1739-41.
81. Roche O, Kiyama R, Brooks CL. Ligand-Protein DataBase: Linking protein-ligand complex structures to binding data. J Med Chem 2001; 44: 3592-8.
82. Ferrara P, Gohlke H, Price DJ, Klebe G, Brooks CL. Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. J Med Chem 2004; 47: 3032-47.
83. Huang SY, Zou XQ. Construction and Test of Ligand Decoy Sets Using MDock: Community Structure-Activity Resource Benchmarks for Binding Mode Prediction. J Chem Information Modeling 2011; 51: 2107-14.
84. Muegge I, Martin YC, Hajduk PJ, Fesik SW. Evaluation of PMF scoring in docking weak ligands to the FK506 binding protein. J Med Chem 1999; 42: 2498-503.
85. Hu LG, Benson ML, Smith RD, Lerner MG, Carlson HA. Binding MOAD (Mother of All Databases). Proteins-Structure Function and Bioinformatics 2005; 60: 333-40.
86. Benson ML, Smith RD, Khazanov NA, et al. Binding MOAD, a high-quality protein-ligand database. Nucleic Acids Res 2008; 36: D674-8.
87. Liu TQ, Lin YM, Wen X, Jorissen RN, Gilson MK. BindingDB: a web-accessible database of experimentally determined proteinligand binding affinities. Nucleic Acids Res 2007; 35: D198-201.
88. Chang DTH, Ke CH, Lin JH, Chiang JH. AutoBind: Automatic extraction of protein-ligand binding affinity data from biological literature. Bioinformatics 2012. (doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bts367)