Improved protein-ligand binding affinity prediction by using a curvature-dependent surface-area model

Bioinformatics

Volumn 30, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 1674-1680

  Cao, Yang ^a   Li, Lei ^a  

^a SICHUAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMICAL PHENOMENA; CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; ENTROPY; HYDROGEN BOND; PROTEIN BINDING;

ENTROPY; HYDROGEN BONDING; HYDROPHOBIC AND HYDROPHILIC INTERACTIONS; LIGANDS; MODELS, CHEMICAL; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEINS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84902438255     PISSN: 13674803     EISSN: 14602059     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu104     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Ball, P. (2007) Water as an active constituent in cell biology. Chem. Rev., 108, 74-108.
2. Ballester, P.J. and Mitchell, J.B. (2010) A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking. Bioinformatics, 26, 1169-1175.
3. Blokzijl, W. and Engberts, J. (1993) Hydrophobic effects. Opinions and facts. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl., 32, 1545-1579.
4. Blundell, T.L. (1996) Structure-based drug design. Nature, 384(Suppl 6604), 23-26.
5. Bohm, H.J. (1998) 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. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 12, 309-323.
6. Bohm, H.J. (1994) The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 8, 243-256.
7. Brooks, B. et al. (1983) CHARMM: a program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J. Comput. Chem., 4, 187-217.
8. Chandler, D. (2005) Interfaces and the driving force of hydrophobic assembly. Nature, 437, 640-647.
9. Cheng, Y.K. and Rossky, P.J. (1998) Surface topography dependence of biomolecu-lar hydrophobic hydration. Nature 1998, 392, 696-699.
10. Cheng, T. et al. (2009) Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 49, 1079-1093.
11. Chothia, C. (1976) The nature of the accessible and buried surfaces in proteins. J. Mol. Biol., 105, 1-12.
12. Eldridge, M.D. et al. (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.
13. Ewing, T.J. et al. (2001) DOCK 4.0: search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 15, 411-428.
14. Fennell, C.J. et al. (2010) Oil/water transfer is partly driven by molecular shape, not just size. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 132, 234-240.
15. Frank, H. and Evans, M. (1945) Free volume and entropy in condensed systems III. Entropy in binary liquid mixtures; partial molal entropy in dilute solutions; structure and thermodynamics in aqueous electrolytes. J. Chem. Phys., 13, 507-532.
16. Friesner, R.A. et al. (2006) Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes. J. Med. Chem., 49, 6177-6196.
17. Friesner, R.A. et al. (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem., 47, 1739-1749.
18. Gehlhaar, D.K. et al. (1995) Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. Chem. Biol., 2, 317-324.
19. Gohlke, H. et al. (2000) Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol., 295, 337-356.
20. Goodford, P.J. (1985) A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. J. Med. Chem., 28, 849-857.
21. Graziano, G. and Lee, B. (2003) Entropy convergence in hydrophobic hydration: a scaled particle theory analysis. Biophys. Chem., 105, 241-250.
22. Huang, S.Y. and Zou, X. (2010) Inclusion of solvation and entropy in the knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 50, 262-273.
23. Huang, S.-Y. et al. (2010) Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for pro-tein-ligand docking: recent advances and future directions. Phys. Chem., 12, 12899-12908.
24. Jain, A.N. (1996) Scoring noncovalent protein-ligand interactions: a continuous dif-ferentiable function tuned to compute binding affinities. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 10, 427-440.
25. Kauzmann, W. (1959) Some factors in the interpretation of protein denaturation. Adv. Protein chem., 14, 1-63.
26. Klosowski, J.T. et al. (1998) Efficient collision detection using bounding volume hierarchies of k-DOPs. IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graph., 4, 21-36.
27. Koes, D.R., Baumgartner, M.P. and Camacho, C.J. (2013) Lessons learned in empirical scoring with smina from the CSAR 2011 benchmarking exercise. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 53, 1893-1904.
28. Korb, O. et al. (2009) Empirical scoring functions for advanced protein-ligand docking with PLANTS. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 49, 84-96.
29. Krammer, A. et al. (2005) LigScore: a novel scoring function for predicting binding affinities. J. Mol. Graph Model, 23, 395-407.
30. Kuntz, I.D. (1992) Structure-based strategies for drug design and discovery. Science, 257, 1078-1082.
31. Liu, H.Y. and Zou, X. (2006) Electrostatics of ligand binding: parametrization of the generalized Born model and comparison with the Poisson-Boltzmann approach. J. Phys. Chem. B, 110, 9304-9313.
32. Lum, K. et al. (1999) Hydrophobicity at small and large length scales. J. Phys. Chem. B, 103, 4570-4577.
33. Meyer, E. et al. (2003) Interactions with aromatic rings in chemical and biological recognition. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 42, 1210-1250.
34. Mooij, W.T. and Verdonk, M.L. (2005) General and targeted statistical potentials for protein-ligand interactions. Proteins, 61, 272-287.
35. Morris, G.M. et al. (1996) Distributed automated docking of flexible ligands to proteins: parallel applications of AutoDock 2.4. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 10, 293-304.
36. Moustakas, D.T. et al. (2006) Development and validation of a modular, extensible docking program: DOCK 5. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 20, 601-619.
37. Muegge, I. (2006) PMF scoring revisited. J. Med. Chem., 49, 5895-5902.
38. Muegge, I. and Martin, Y.C. (1999) A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. J. Med. Chem., 42, 791-804.
39. Neudert, G. and Klebe, G. (2011) DSX: a knowledge-based scoring function for the assessment of protein-ligand complexes. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 51, 2731-2745.
40. Nicholls, A. et al. (1991) Protein folding and association: insights from the interfacial and thermodynamic properties of hydrocarbons. Proteins, 11, 281-296.
41. Petrey, D. and Honig, B. (2000) Free energy determinants of tertiary structure and the evaluation of protein models. Protein Sci., 9, 2181-2191.
42. Pratt, L. and Chandler, D. (1977) Theory of the hydrophobic effect. J. Chem. Phys., 67, 3683-3704.
43. Rajamani, S. et al. (2005) Hydrophobic hydration from small to large lengthscales: Understanding and manipulating the crossover. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 102, 9475-9480.
44. Salaniwal, S. et al. (2007) Critical evaluation of methods to incorporate entropy loss upon binding in high-throughput docking. Proteins, 66, 422-435.
45. Setny, P. et al. (2009) Dewetting-controlled binding of ligands to hydrophobic pockets. Phys. Rev. Lett., 103, 187801.
46. Sharp, K.A. et al. (1991) Reconciling the magnitude of the microscopic and macroscopic hydrophobic effects. Science, 252, 106-109.
47. Shoichet, B.K. et al. (1999) Ligand solvation in molecular docking. Proteins, 34, 4-16.
48. Shrake, A. and Rupley, J.A. (1973) Environment and exposure to solvent of protein atoms. Lysozyme and insulin. J. Mol. Biol., 79, 351-371.
49. Sinanoglu, O. (1981) Microscopic surface tension down to molecular dimensions and microthermodynamic surface areas of molecules or clusters. J. Chem. Phys., 75, 463-468.
50. Snyder, P. et al. (2013) Is it the shape of the cavity, or the shape of the water in the cavity? Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top., 1-39.
51. Snyder, P.W. et al. (2011) Mechanism of the hydrophobic effect in the biomolecular recognition of arylsulfonamides by carbonic anhydrase. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 17889-17894.
52. Southall, N. et al. (2001) A view of the hydrophobic effect. J. Phys. Chem. B, 106, 521-533.
53. Stillinger, F. (1973) Structure in aqueous solutions of nonpolar solutes from the standpoint of scaled-particle theory. J. Sol. Chem., 2, 141-158.
54. Tanford, C. (1979) Interfacial free energy and the hydrophobic effect. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 76, 4175-4176.
55. Tang, Y.T. and Marshall, G.R. (2011) PHOENIX: a scoring function for affinity prediction derived using high-resolution crystal structures and calorimetry measurements. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 51, 214-228.
56. Tolman, R.C. (1949) The effect of droplet size on surface tension. J. Chem. Phys., 17, 5.
57. Velec, H.F. et al. (2005) DrugScore(CSD)-knowledge-based scoring function derived from small molecule crystal data with superior recognition rate of near-native ligand poses and better affinity prediction. J. Med. Chem., 48, 6296-6303.
58. Wang, R. et al. (2002) Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 16, 11-26.
59. Wang, R. et al. (2004) The PDBbind database: collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. J. Med. Chem., 47, 2977-2980.
60. Wang, R. et al. (2005) The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates. J. Med. Chem., 48, 4111-4119.
61. Wei, B.Q. et al. (2002) A model binding site for testing scoring functions in molecular docking. J. Mol. Biol., 322, 339-355.
62. Zhang, C. et al. (2005) A knowledge-based energy function for protein-ligand, protein-protein, and protein-DNA complexes. J. Med. Chem., 48, 2325-2335.
63. Zheng, Z. and Merz, K.M. Jr (2013) Development of the knowledge-based and empirical combined scoring algorithm (kecsa) to score protein-ligand interactions. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 53, 1073-1083.
64. Zhou, H. and Skolnick, J. (2011) GOAP: a generalized orientation- dependent, allatom statistical potential for protein structure prediction. Biophys. J., 101, 2043-2052.