PharmDock: A pharmacophore-based docking program

Journal of Cheminformatics

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Hu, Bingjie ^a   Lill, Markus A ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biased docking; Confined docking; Constraint docking; Docking; GUI; Protein pharmacophores; PyMOL; Scoring

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900472476     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17582946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1758-2946-6-14     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Distance comparisons (DISCO): a new strategy for examining 3D structure-activity relationships. Martin Y, Classical and Three-Dimensional QSAR in Agrochemistry Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, Hansch C, Fujita T, 1995 318 329
2. Identification of common functional configurations among molecules. Barnum D, Greene J, Smellie A, Sprague P, J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1996 36 563 571 10.1021/ci950273r 8690757 (Pubitemid 126539357)
3. PHASE: a new engine for pharmacophore perception, 3D QSAR model development, and 3D database screening: 1. Methodology and preliminary results. Dixon SL, Smondyrev AM, Knoll EH, Rao SN, Shaw DE, Friesner RA, J Comput Aided Mol Des 2006 20 647 671 10.1007/s10822-006-9087-6 17124629 (Pubitemid 46023928)
4. GALAHAD: 1. Pharmacophore identification by hypermolecular alignment of ligands in 3D. Richmond NJ, Abrams CA, Wolohan PRN, Abrahamian E, Willett P, Clark RD, J Comput Aided Mol Des 2006 20 567 587 10.1007/s10822-006-9082-y 17051338 (Pubitemid 44823892)
5. Automated pharmacophore identification for large chemical data sets 1. Chen X, Rusinko A III, Tropsha A, Young SS, J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1999 39 887 896 10.1021/ci990327n 10529987
6. Application of structurebased focusing to the estrogen receptor. Kirchhoff PD, Brown R, Kahn S, Waldman M, Venkatachalam C, J Comput Chem 2001 22 993 1003 10.1002/jcc.1060 (Pubitemid 32614371)
7. Hot-spots-guided receptor-based pharmacophores (HS-Pharm): a knowledge-based approach to identify ligand-anchoring atoms in protein cavities and prioritize structure-based pharmacophores. Barillari C, Marcou G, Rognan D, J Chem Inf Model 2008 48 1396 1410 10.1021/ci800064z 18570371
8. Targets looking for drugs: A multistep computational protocol for the development of structure-based pharmacophores and their applications for hit discovery. Tintori C, Corradi V, Magnani M, Manetti F, Botta M, J Chem Inf Model 2008 48 2166 2179 10.1021/ci800105p 18942779
9. Grid-derived structure-based 3D pharmacophores and their performance compared to docking. Cross S, Cruciani G, Drug Discov Today Technol 2011 7 213 e219
10. Exploring the potential of protein-based pharmacophore models in ligand pose prediction and ranking. Hu B, Lill MA, J Chem Inf Model 2013 53 1179 1190 10.1021/ci400143r 23621564
11. The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates. Wang R, Fang X, Lu Y, Yang CY, Wang S, J Med Chem 2005 48 4111 4119 10.1021/jm048957q 15943484 (Pubitemid 40800619)
12. OpenEye Scientific Software Santa Fe N, USA http://www.eyesopen.com: OMEGA: version 2.2.0
13. Conformer generation with OMEGA: algorithm and validation using high quality structures from the Protein Databank and Cambridge Structural Database. Hawkins PCD, Skillman AG, Warren GL, Ellingson BA, Stahl MT, J Chem Inf Model 2010 50 572 584 10.1021/ci100031x 20235588
14. Conformer generation with OMEGA: learning from the dataset and the analysis of failures. Hawkins PCD, Nicholls A, J Chem Inf Model 2012 52 2919 2936 10.1021/ci300314k 23082786
15. The PDBbind database: collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. Wang R, Fang X, Lu Y, Wang S, J Med Chem 2004 47 2977 2980 10.1021/jm030580l 15163179 (Pubitemid 38702694)
16. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. Huang N, Shoichet BK, Irwin JJ, J Med Chem 2006 49 6789 6801 10.1021/jm0608356 17154509 (Pubitemid 44749746)
17. DeLano WL, The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System San Carlos CA, USA: DeLano Scientific 2002
18. The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System Schrödinger: LLC Version 1.1r1 http://www.pymol.org/citing
19. Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes. Eldridge MD, Murray CW, Auton TR, Paolini GV, Mee RP, J Comput Aided Mol Des 1997 11 425 445 10.1023/A:1007996124545 9385547 (Pubitemid 127505895)
20. Flexible docking using tabu search and an empirical estimate of binding affinity. Baxter CA, Murray CW, Clark DE, Westhead DR, Eldridge MD, Proteins: Struct, Funct, Bioinf 1998 33 367 382 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19981115)33: 3<367::AID-PROT6>3.0.CO;2-W (Pubitemid 28516342)
21. Algorithm 457: finding all cliques of an undirected graph. Bron C, Kerbosch J, Commun ACM 1973 16 575 577 10.1145/362342.362367
22. Harley ER, Graph algorithms for assembling integrated genome maps University of Toronto 2003
23. A solution for the best rotation to relate two sets of vectors. Kabsch W, Acta Crystallogr A 1976 32 922 923 10.1107/S0567739476001873
24. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. Metropolis N, Rosenbluth AW, Rosenbluth MN, Teller AH, Teller E, J Chem Phys 1953 21 1087 10.1063/1.1699114
25. Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. Gehlhaar DK, Verkhivker GM, Rejto PA, Sherman CJ, Fogel DB, Fogel LJ, Freer ST, Chem Biol 1995 2 317 324 10.1016/1074-5521(95)90050-0 9383433
26. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set. Cheng T, Li X, Li Y, Liu Z, Wang R, J Chem Inf Model 2009 49 1079 1093 10.1021/ci9000053 19358517
27. Asparagine and glutamine: using hydrogen atom contacts in the choice of side-chain amide orientation1. Word J, Lovell S, Richardson J, Richardson D, J Mol Biol 1999 285 1735 1747 10.1006/jmbi.1998.2401 9917408 (Pubitemid 29060467)
28. Case DA, Darden TA, Cheatham TE, Simmerling CL, Wang J, Duke RE, Luo R, Crowley M, Walker RC, Zhang W, Merz KM, Wang B, Hayik S, Roitberg A, Seabra G, Kolossváry I, Wong KF, Paesani F, Vanicek J, Wu X, Brozell SR, Steinbrecher T, Gohlke H, Yang L, Tan C, Mongan J, Hornak V, Cui G, Mathews DH, Seetin MG, et al. AMBER 10 San Francisco: University of California 2008
29. Evaluation of the performance of four molecular docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes. Li X, Li Y, Cheng T, Liu Z, Wang R, J Comput Chem 2010 31 2109 2125 10.1002/jcc.21498 20127741
30. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Kellenberger E, Rodrigo J, Muller P, Rognan D, Proteins 2004 57 225 242 10.1002/prot.20149 15340911 (Pubitemid 39223729)
31. Can we trust docking results? Evaluation of seven commonly used programs on PDBbind database. Plewczynski D, Łaźniewski M, Augustyniak R, Ginalski K, J Comput Chem 2011 32 742 755 10.1002/jcc.21643 20812323
32. Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy. Cross JB, Thompson DC, Rai BK, Baber JC, Fan KY, Hu Y, Humblet C, J Chem Inf Model 2009 49 1455 1474 10.1021/ci900056c 19476350
33. Contribution of explicit solvent effects to the binding affinity of smallmolecule inhibitors in blood coagulation factor serine proteases. Abel R, Salam NK, Shelley J, Farid R, Friesner RA, Sherman W, Chemmedchem 2011 6 1049 1066 10.1002/cmdc.201000533 21506273
34. Analysis and optimization of structure-based virtual screening protocols: (3). New methods and old problems in scoring function design. Smith R, Hubbard RE, Gschwend DA, Leach AR, Good AC, J Mol Graph Model 2003 22 41 53 10.1016/S1093-3263(03)00125-6 12798390 (Pubitemid 36694494)
35. Oxyanion-mediated inhibition of serine proteases. Presnell SR, Patil GS, Mura C, Jude KM, Conley JM, Bertrand JA, Kam C-M, Powers JC, Williams LD, Biochemistry (Mosc) 1998 37 17068 17081 10.1021/bi981636u (Pubitemid 28566786)
36. Structure of the complex of trypsin with a highly potent synthetic inhibitor at 0.97 A resolution. Sherawat M, Kaur P, Perbandt M, Betzel C, Slusarchyk WA, Bisacchi GS, Chang C, Jacobson BL, Einspahr HM, Singh TP, Acta Crystallogr Sect D: Biol Crystallogr 2007 63 500 507 10.1107/S090744490700697X (Pubitemid 46465945)
37. Comparing protein-ligand docking programs is difficult. Cole JC, Murray CW, Nissink JWM, Taylor RD, Taylor R, Proteins: Struct, Funct, Bioinf 2005 60 325 332 10.1002/prot.20497 (Pubitemid 41061629)
38. Significant enhancement of docking sensitivity using implicit ligand sampling. Xu M, Lill MA, J Chem Inf Model 2011 51 693 706 10.1021/ci100457t 21375306