Exploiting structural information for drug-target assessment

Future Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 319-331

  Volkamer, Andrea ^a   Rarey, Matthias ^b  

^a BioMed X Innovation Center   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; DRUG TARGETING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; REVIEW;

ANIMALS; BINDING SITES; CATALYTIC DOMAIN; DATABASES, PROTEIN; DRUG DESIGN; HUMANS; PROTEINS;

EID: 84895469259     PISSN: 17568919     EISSN: 17568927     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4155/fmc.14.3     Document Type: Review

References (98)

1. SM Paul, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie TC et al. How to improve R&D productivity: The pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9(3), 203-214 (2010).
2. Joseph-McCarthy D, Baber JC, Feyfant E et al. Lead optimization via high-Throughput molecular docking. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 10(3), 264-274 (2007).
3. Illergard K, Ardell HD, Elofison A. Structure is three to ten times more conserved than sequence-A study of structural response in protein cores. Proteins 77(3), 499-508 (2009).
4. Berman MH, Westbrook JZ, Feng et al. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28(1), 235-242 (2000).
5. Sleator RD, Walsh P. An overview of in silico protein function prediction. Arch Microbiol. 192(3), 151-155 (2010).
6. Liu T, Tang GW, Capriotti E. Comparative modeling: The state of the art and protein drug target structure prediction. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 14(6), 532-547 (2011).
7. Henrich SM, Salo-Ahen OB. Huang et al. Computational approaches to identifying and characterizing protein binding sites for ligand design. J. Mol. Recognit. 23(2), 209-219 (2010).
8. Liang J, Edelsbrunner H, Woodward C. Anatomy of protein pockets and cavities: Measurement of binding site geometry and implications for ligand design. Protein Sci. 7(9), 1884-1897 (1998).
9. Egner U, Hillig RC. A structural biology view of target drugability. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 3(4), 391-401 (2008).
10. Hopkins AL, Groom CR. The druggable genome. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 1(9), 727-730 (2002).
11. Edfeldt FN, Folmer RH, Breeze AL. Fragment screening to predict druggability (ligandability) and lead discovery success. Drug Discov. Today 16(7-8), 284-287 (2011).
12. Sheridan RP, Maiorov VN, Holloway MK et al. Drug-like density: A method of quantifying the 'bindability' of a protein target based on a very large set of pockets and drug-like ligands from the protein data bank. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50(11), 2029-2040 (2010).
13. Ward RA. Using protein-ligand docking to assess the chemical tractability of inhibiting a protein target. J. Mol. Model. 16(12), 1833-1843 (2010).
14. Sakharkar MK, Sakharkar KR. Targetability of human disease genes. Curr. Drug Discov. Technol. 4(1), 48-58 (2007).
15. Barril X. Druggability predictions: Methods, limitations, and applications. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 3(4), 327-338 (2013).
16. Cheng AC, Coleman RG, Smyth KT et al. Structure-based maximal affinity model predicts small-molecule druggability. Nat. Biotechnol. 25(1), 71-75 (2007).
17. Brown D, Superti-Furga G. Rediscovering the sweet spot in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 8(23), 1067-1077 (2003).
18. Volkamer A, Kuhn D, Rippmann F, Rarey M. Predicting enzymatic function from global binding site descriptors. Proteins 81(3), 479-489 (2013).
19. Haupt JV, Daminelli S, Schroeder M. Drug promiscuity in PDB: Protein binding site similarity is key. PLoS ONE 8(6), e65894 (2013).
20. Xie L, Wang J, Bourne PE. In silico elucidation of the molecular mechanism defining the adverse effect of selective estrogen receptor modulators. PLoS Comput. Biol. 3(11), e217 (2007).
21. Kinnings SL, Liu N, Buchmeier N et al. Drug discovery using chemical systems biology: Repositioning the safe medicine Comtan to treat multi-drug and extensively drug resistant tuberculosis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5(7), e1000423 (2009).
22. Kellenberger E, Schalon C, Rognan D. How to measure the similarity between protein ligand-binding sites? Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des. 4(3), 209-220 (2008).
23. Volkamer A, Griewel A, Grombacher T, Rarey M. Analyzing the topology of active sites: On the prediction of pockets and subpockets. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50(11), 2041-2052 (2010).
24. Levitt DG, Banaszak LJ. Pocket: A computer graphics method for identifying and displaying protein cavities and their surrounding amino acids. J. Mol. Graph. 10(4), 229-234 (1992).
25. Hendlich M, Rippmann F, Barnickel G. LIGSITE: Automatic and efficient detection of potential small molecule-binding sites in proteins. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 15(6), 359-363 (1997).
26. Weisel M, Proschak E, Schneider G. PocketPicker: Analysis of ligand binding-sites with shape descriptors. Chem. Cent. J. 1, 7 (2007).
27. Halgren TA. Identifying and characterizing binding sites and assessing druggability. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49(2), 377-389 (2009).
28. Laskowski RA. Surfnet: A program for visualizing molecular surfaces, cavities, and intermolecular interactions. J. Mol. Graph. 13(5), 323-330 (1995).
29. Brady GPJ, Stouten PF. Fast prediction and visualization of protein binding pockets with pass. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 14(4), 383-401 (2000).
30. Peters KP, Fauck J, Frommel C. The automatic search for ligand binding sites in proteins of known three-dimensional structure using only geometric criteria. J. Mol. Biol. 256(1), 201-213 (1996).
31. Le Guilloux V, Schmidtke P, Tuffery P. Fpocket: An open source platform for ligand pocket detection. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 168 (2009).
32. An J, Totrov M, Abagyan R. Comprehensive identification of 'druggable' protein ligand binding sites. Genome Inform. 15(2), 31-41 (2004).
33. Laurie ATR, Jackson RM. Q-SiteFinder: An energy-based method for the prediction of protein-ligand binding sites. Bioinformatics 21(9), 1908-1916 (2005).
34. Huang B, Schroeder M. LIGSITECSC: Predicting ligand binding sites using the connolly surface and degree of conservation. BMC Struct. Biol. 6, 19 (2006).
35. Glaser FJ, Morris R, Najmanovich RJ et al. A method for localizing ligand binding pockets in protein structures. Proteins 62(2), 479-488 (2006).
36. Skolnick J, Brylinski M. Findsite: A combined evolution/structure-based approach to protein function prediction. Brief Bioinform. 10(4), 378-391 (2009).
37. Zhang Z, Li Y, Lin B et al. Identification of cavities on protein surface using multiple computational approaches for drug binding site prediction. Bioinformatics 27(15), 2083-2088 (2011).
38. Kawabata T. Detection of multiscale pockets on protein surfaces using mathematical morphology. Proteins 78(5), 1195-1211 (2010).
39. Yu J, Zhou Y, Tanaka I, Yao M. Roll: A new algorithm for the detection of protein pockets and cavities with a rolling probe sphere. Bioinformatics 26(1), 46-52 2010.
40. Xie RZ, Hwang MJ. Ligand-binding site prediction using ligand-interacting and binding site-enriched protein triangles. Bioinformatics 28(12), 1579-1585 (2012).
41. Kalliokoski T, Olsson TS, Vulpetti A. Subpocket analysis method for fragment-based drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53(1), 131-141 (2013).
42. Schmidtke P, Bidon-Chanal A, Luque FJ, Barril X. MDpocket: Open-source cavity detection and characterization on molecular dynamics trajectories. Bioinformatics 27(23), 3276-3285 (2011).
43. Craig IR, Pfleger C, Gohlke H et al. Pocket-space maps to identify novel binding-site conformations in proteins. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 51(10), 2666-2679 (2011).
44. Kokh DB, Richter S, Henrich S et al. TRAPP: A tool for analysis of transient binding pockets in proteins. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53(5), 1235-1252 (2013).
45. Pellecchia M, Bertini I, Cowburn D et al Perspectives on NMR in drug discovery: A technique comes of age. 7(9), 738-745 (2008).
46. Hajduk PJ, Huth JR, Fesik SW. Druggability indices for protein targets derived from NMR-based screening data. J. Med. Chem. 48(7), 2518-2525 (2005).
47. Hajduk PJ, JR Huth, Tse C. Predicting protein druggability. Drug Discov. Today 10(23-24), 1675-1682 (2005).
48. Nayal M, Honig B. On the nature of cavities on protein surfaces: Application to the identification of drug-binding sites. Proteins 63(4), 892-906 (2006).
49. Weisel M, Proschak E, Kriegl JM, Schneider G. Form follows function: Shape analysis of protein cavities for receptor-based drug design. Proteomics 9(2), 451-459 (2009).
50. Wang R, Fang X, Lu Y, Wang S. The PDBbind database: Collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. J. Med. Chem. 47(12), 2977-2980 (2004).
51. Krasowski A, Muthas D, A. Sarkar et al. DrugPred: A structure-based approach to predict protein druggability developed using an extensive nonredundant data set. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 51(11), 2829-2842 (2011).
52. Schmidtke P, Barril X. Understanding and predicting druggability. A high-Throughput method for detection of drug binding sites. J. Med. Chem. 53(15), 5858-5867 (2010).
53. Volkamer A, Kuhn D, Grombacher T, Rippmann F, Rarey M. Combining global and local measures for structure-based druggability predictions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52(2), 360-372 (2012).
54. Perola E, Herman L, Weiss J. Development of a rule-based method for the assessment of protein druggability. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52(4), 1027-38 (2012).
55. Brown PS, Hajduk PJ. Effects of conformational dynamics on predicted protein druggability. ChemMedChem. 1(1), 70-72 (2006).
56. Hubbard TJ, Murzin AG, Brenner SE, Chothia C. SCOP: A structural classification of proteins database. Nucleic Acids Res. 25(1), 236-239 (1997).
57. Orengo CA, Michie AD, Jones S et al. CATH-A hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure 5(8), 1093-1109 (1997).
58. Taubig H, Buchner A, Griebsch J. Past: Fast structure-based searching in the PDB. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, W20-W23 (2006).
59. Gibrat JF, Madej T, Bryant SH. Surprising similarities in structure comparison. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 6(3), 377-385 (1996).
60. Almonacid DE, Yera ER, Mitchell JB, Babbitt PC. Quantitative comparison of catalytic mechanisms and overall reactions in convergently evolved enzymes: Implications for classification of enzyme function. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6(3), e1000700 (2010).
61. Minai R, Matsuo Y, Onuki H, Hirota H. Method for comparing the structures of protein ligand-binding sites and application for predicting protein-drug interactions. Proteins 72(1), 367-381 (2008).
62. Jambon M, Imberty A, Deleage G, Geourjon C. A new bioinformatic approach to detect common 3d sites in protein structures. Proteins 52(2), 137-145 (2003).
63. Brakoulias A, Jackson RM. Towards a structural classification of phosphate binding sites in protein-nucleotide complexes: An automated all-Against-All structural comparison using geometric matching. Proteins 56(2), 250-260 (2004).
64. Shulman-Peleg A, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJ. Recognition of functional sites in protein structures. J. Mol. Biol. 339(3), 607-633 (2004).
65. Wallace AC, Borkakoti N, Thornton JM. Tess: A geometric hashing algorithm for deriving 3d coordinate templates for searching structural databases. Application to enzyme active sites. Protein Sci. 6(11), 2308-2323 (1997).
66. Milik M, Szalma S, Olszewski KA. Common structural cliques: A tool for protein structure and function analysis. Protein Eng. 16(8), 543-552 (2003).
67. Schmitt S, Kuhn D, Klebe G. A new method to detect related function among proteins independent of sequence and fold homology. J. Mol. Biol. 323(2), 387-406 (2002).
68. Kuhn D, Weskamp N, Schmitt S, Huellermeier E, Klebe G. From the similarity analysis of protein cavities to the functional classification of protein families using cavbase. J. Mol. Biol. 359(4), 1023-1044 (2006).
69. Kinoshita K, Furui J, Nakamura H. Identification of protein functions from a molecular surface database, eF-site. J. Struct. Funct. Genomics 2(1), 9-22 (2002).
70. Kinoshita K, Murakami Y, Nakamura H. eF-seek: Prediction of the functional sites of proteins by searching for similar electrostatic potential and molecular surface shape. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, W398-W402 (2007).
71. Najmanovich R, Kurbatova N, Thornton J. Detection of 3D atomic similarities and their use in the discrimination of small molecule protein-binding sites. Bioinformatics 24(16), i105-i111 (2008).
72. Konc J, Janezic D. Probis-2012: Web server and web services for detection of structurally similar binding sites in proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, W214-W221 (2012).
73. Morris RJ, Najmanovich RJ, Kahraman A, Thornton JM. Real spherical harmonic expansion coefficients as 3D shape descriptors for protein binding pocket and ligand comparisons. Bioinformatics 21(10), 2347-2355 (2005).
74. Sael L, Chitale M, Kihara D. Structure-And sequence-based function prediction for non-homologous proteins. J. Struct. Funct. Genomics 13(2), 111-123 (2012).
75. Yeturu K, Chandra N. PocketMatch: A new algorithm to compare binding sites in protein structures. BMC Bioinformatics 9, 543 (2008).
76. Baroni M, Cruciani G, Sciabola S, Perruccio F, Mason JS. A common reference framework for analyzing/comparing proteins and ligands fingerprints for ligands and proteins (FLAP): Theory and application. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47(2), 279-294 (2007).
77. Schalon C, Surgand JS, Kellenberger E, Rognan D. A simple and fuzzy method to align and compare druggable ligand-binding sites. Proteins 71(4), 1755-1778 (2008).
78. Weill N, Rognan D. Alignment-free ultra-high-Throughput comparison of druggable protein-ligand binding sites. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50(1), 123-135 (2010).
79. Wood DJ, De Vlieg J, Wagener M, Ritschel T. Pharmacophore fingerprint-based approach to binding site subpocket similarity and its application to bioisostere replacement. J. Chem Inf. Model. 52(8), 2031-2043 (2012).
80. Aung Z, Tong JC. BSAlign: A rapid graph-based algorithm for detecting ligand-binding sites in protein structures. Genome Inform. 21, 65-76 (2008).
81. Oestergaard PRJ. A fast algorithm for the maximum clique problem. Discrete Appl. Math. 120(1-3), 197-207 (2002).
82. Desaphy J, Azdimousa K, Kellenberger E, Rognan D. Comparison and druggability prediction of protein-ligand binding sites from pharmacophore-Annotated cavity shapes. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52(8), 2287-2299 (2012).
83. Von Behren MM, Volkamer A, Henzler AM et al. Fast protein binding site comparison via an index-based screening technology. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53(2), 411-422 (2013).
84. Ramensky V, Sobol A, Zaitseva N, Rubinov A, Zosimov V. A novel approach to local similarity of protein binding sites substantially improves computational drug design results. Proteins 69(2), 349-357 (2007).
85. Moriaud F, Doppelt-Azeroual O, Martin L et al. Computational fragment-based approach at PDB scale by protein local similarity. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49(2), 280-294 (2009).
86. Wallach I, Lilien RH. Prediction of sub-cavity binding preferences using an adaptive physicochemical structure representation. Bioinformatics 25(12), i296-i304 (2009).
87. Villoutreix BO, Lagorce D, Labbé CM, Sperandio O, Miteva MA. One hundred thousand mouse clicks down the road: Selected online resources supporting drug discovery collected over a decade. Drug Discov. Today 18(21-22), 1081-1089 (2013).
88. Moult J, Fidelis K, Kryshtafovych A, Tramontano A. Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)-round IX. Proteins 79(Suppl. 10), 1-5 (2011).
89. Xiao Y, Segal MR. Biological sequence classification utilizing positive and unlabeled data. Bioinformatics 24(9), 1198-1205 (2008).
90. Geppert T, Reisen F, Pillong M et al. Virtual screening for compounds that mimic protein-protein interface epitopes. J. Comput. Chem. 33(5), 573-579 (2012).
91. Fry D, Huang K, Di Lello P et al. Design of libraries targeting protein-protein interfaces. ChemMedChem 8(5), 726-732 (2013).
92. Fuller JC, Burgoyne NJ, Jackson RM. Predicting druggable binding sites at the protein-protein interface. Drug Discov. Today, 14(3-4), 155-161 (2009).
93. Lexa KW, Carlson HA. Protein flexibility in docking and surface mapping. Q. Rev. Biophys. 45(3), 301-343 (2012).
94. Fischer E. Einfluss der configuration auf die wirkung der enzyme. In: Berichte der Deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft. Berlin, Germany, 27(7), 2985-2993 (1894).
95. Koshland ED. Application of a theory of enzyme specificity to protein synthesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 44(2), 98-104 (1958).
96. Shaw DE, Maragakis P, Lindorff-Larsen K et al. Atomic-level characterization of the structural dynamics of proteins. Science 330(6002), 341-346 (2010).
97. Eyrisch S, Helms V. Transient pockets on protein surfaces involved in protein-protein interaction. J. Med. Chem. 50(15), 3457-3464 (2007).
98. Dror RO, Green HF, Valant C et al. Structural basis for modulation of a G-protein-coupled receptor by allosteric drugs. Nature 503(7475), 295-299 (2013).