PL-Patchsurfer: A novel molecular local surface-based method for exploring protein-ligand interactions

International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Volumn 15, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 15122-15145

  Hu, Bingjie ^a   Zhu, Xiaolei ^a   Monroe, Lyman ^a   Bures, Mark G ^c   Kihara, Daisuke ^a,b  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Purdue University   (United States)

^c ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

3D Zernike descriptor; Ligand prediction; PL Patchsurfer; Surface patch; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; MOLECULAR LIBRARY; PROTEIN; PROTEIN BINDING;

ALGORITHM; BINDING SITE; CHEMISTRY; METABOLISM; MOLECULAR DOCKING; MOLECULAR LIBRARY; PHARMACOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

ALGORITHMS; BINDING SITES; LIGANDS; MOLECULAR DOCKING SIMULATION; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEINS; SMALL MOLECULE LIBRARIES;

EID: 84906824166     PISSN: 16616596     EISSN: 14220067     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/ijms150915122     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Berman, H.M.; Battistuz, T.; Bhat, T.N.; Bluhm, W.F.; Bourne, P.E.; Burkhardt, K.; Feng, Z.; Gilliland, G.L.; Iype, L.; Jain, S. et al. The protein data bank. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 2002, 58, 899-907.
2. Hoffmann, B.; Zaslavskiy, M.; Vert, J.-P.; Stoven, V. A new protein binding pocket similarity measure based on comparison of clouds of atoms in 3D: Application to ligand prediction. BMC Bioinform. 2010, 11, 99.
3. Kinoshita, K.; Nakamura, H. Identification of the ligand binding sites on the molecular surface of proteins. Protein Sci. 2005, 14, 711-718.
4. Shulman-Peleg, A.; Nussinov, R.; Wolfson, H.J. Siteengines: Recognition and comparison of binding sites and protein-protein interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33, W337-W341.
5. Schmitt, S.; Kuhn, D.; Klebe, G. A new method to detect related function among proteins independent of sequence and fold homology. J. Mol. Biol. 2002, 323, 387-406.
6. Najmanovich, R.; Kurbatova, N.; Thornton, J. Detection of 3D atomic similarities and their use in the discrimination of small molecule protein-binding sites. Bioinformatics 2008, 24, i105-i111.
7. Sael, L.; Kihara, D. Binding ligand prediction for proteins using partial matching of local surface patches. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2010, 11, 5009-5026.
8. Sael, L.; Kihara, D. Detecting local ligand-binding site similarity in nonhomologous proteins by surface patch comparison. Proteins 2012, 80, 1177-1195.
9. Brylinski, M.; Skolnick, J. A threading-based method (findsite) for ligand-binding site prediction and functional annotation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 129-134.
10. Porter, C.T.; Bartlett, G.J.; Thornton, J.M. The catalytic site atlas: A resource of catalytic sites and residues identified in enzymes using structural data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 32, D129-D133.
11. Arakaki, A.K.; Zhang, Y.; Skolnick, J. Large-scale assessment of the utility of low-resolution protein structures for biochemical function assignment. Bioinformatics 2004, 20, 1087-1096.
12. Mestres, J.; Knegtel, R.M.A. Similarity versus docking in 3D virtual screening. Perspect. Drug Discov. Des. 2000, 20, 191-207.
13. Willett, P.; Barnard, J.M.; Downs, G.M. Chemical similarity searching. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38, 983-996.
14. Cheng, A.; Diller, D.J.; Dixon, S.L.; Egan, W.J.; Lauri, G.; Merz, K.M. Computation of the physio-chemical properties and data mining of large molecular collections. J. Comput. Chem. 2002, 23, 172-183.
15. Rarey, M.; Dixon, J.S. Feature trees: A new molecular similarity measure based on tree matching. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 1998, 12, 471-490.
16. Srinivasan, J.; Castellino, A.; Bradley, E.K.; Eksterowicz, J.E.; Grootenhuis, P.D.J.; Putta, S.; Stanton, R.V. Evaluation of a novel shape-based computational filter for lead evolution: Application to thrombin inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 2494-2500.
17. Wild, D.J.; Willett, P. Similarity searching in files of three-dimensional chemical structures. Alignment of molecular electrostatic potential fields with a genetic algorithm. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1996, 36, 159-167.
18. Sheridan, R.P.; Kearsley, S.K. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discov. Today 2002, 7, 903-911.
19. Martin, Y. Distance comparisons (disco): A new strategy for examining 3D structure-activity relationships. In Classical and Three-Dimensional Qsar in Agrochemistry; Hansch, C., Fujita, T., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; pp. 318-329.
20. Lill, M. Multi-dimensional qsar in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 2007, 12, 1013-1017.
21. Dixon, S.L.; Smondyrev, A.M.; Knoll, E.H.; Rao, S.N.; Shaw, D.E.; Friesner, R.A. Phase: A new engine for pharmacophore perception, 3D QSAR model development, and 3D database screening: 1. Methodology and preliminary results. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2006, 20, 647-671.
22. Sousa, S.F.; Fernandes, P.A.; Ramos, M.J. Protein-ligand docking: Current status and future challenges. Proteins 2006, 65, 15-26.
23. Cavasotto, C.N.; Orry, A.J. Ligand docking and structure-based virtual screening in drug discovery. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2007, 7, 1006-1014.
24. Kitchen, D.B.; Decornez, H.; Furr, J.R.; Bajorath, J. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: Methods and applications. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2004, 3, 935-949.
25. Goodford, P.J. A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. J. Med. Chem. 1985, 28, 849-857.
26. Goodsell, D.S. Computational docking of biomolecular complexes with autodock. CSH Protoc. 2009, doi:10.1101/pdb.prot5200.
27. Trott, O.; Olson, A.J. Autodock vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J. Comput. Chem. 2010, 31, 455-461.
28. Friesner, R.A.; Banks, J.L.; Murphy, R.B.; Halgren, T.A.; Klicic, J.J.; Mainz, D.T.; Repasky, M.P.; Knoll, E.H.; Shelley, M.; Perry, J.K. et al. Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 1739-1749.
29. Ewing, T.; Makino, S.; Skillman, A.; Kuntz, I. Dock 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2001, 15, 411-428.
30. Hu, B.; Lill, M.A. Pharmdock: A pharmacophore-based docking program. J. Cheminform. 2014, 6, 14.
31. Norel, R.; Lin, S.L.; Wolfson, H.J.; Nussinov, R. Shape complementarity at protein-protein interfaces. Biopolymers 1994, 34, 933-940.
32. Norel, R.; Petrey, D.; Wolfson, H.J.; Nussinov, R. Examination of shape complementarity in docking of unbound proteins. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Bioinf. 1999, 36, 307-317.
33. Chen, R.; Weng, Z. Docking unbound proteins using shape complementarity, desolvation, and electrostatics. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Bioinf. 2002, 47, 281-294.
34. Venkatraman, V.; Yang, Y.D.; Sael, L.; Kihara, D. Protein-protein docking using region-based 3D zernike descriptors. BMC Bioinform. 2009, 10, 407.
35. Sael, L.; Kihara, D. Constructing patch-based ligand-binding pocket database for predicting function of proteins. BMC Bioinform. 2012, 13, S7.
36. Chikhi, R.; Sael, L.; Kihara, D. Real-time ligand binding pocket database search using local surface descriptors. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Bioinf. 2010, 78, 2007-2028.
37. Kihara, D.; Sael, L.; Chikhi, R.; Esquivel-Rodriguez, J. Molecular surface representation using 3D zernike descriptors for protein shape comparison and docking. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 2011, 12, 520-530.
38. 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. 2004, 47, 2977-2980.
39. Wang, R.; Fang, X.; Lu, Y.; Yang, C.Y.; Wang, S. The pdbbind database: Methodologies and updates. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 4111-4119.
40. Huang, B.; Schroeder, M. Ligsitecsc: Predicting ligand binding sites using the connolly surface and degree of conservation. BMC Struct. Biol. 2006, 6, 19.
41. Kahraman, A.; Morris, R.J.; Laskowski, R.A.; Favia, A.D.; Thornton, J.M. On the diversity of physicochemical environments experienced by identical ligands in binding pockets of unrelated proteins. Proteins 2010, 78, 1120-1136.
42. 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. 2007, 35, W398-W402.
43. Omega: Version 2.2.0. Available online: http://www.eyesopen.com (accessed on 25 August 2014).
44. Hawkins, P.C.D.; Skillman, A.G.; Warren, G.L.; Ellingson, B.A.; Stahl, M.T. Conformer generation with omega: Algorithm and validation using high quality structures from the protein databank and cambridge structural database. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 572-584.
45. Hawkins, P.C.D.; Nicholls, A. Conformer generation with omega: Learning from the dataset and the analysis of failures. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52, 2919-2936.
46. Rarey, M.; Kramer, B.; Lengauer, T. Time-efficient docking of flexible ligands into active sites of proteins. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology, Cambridge, UK, 16-19 July 1995; pp. 300-308.
47. Abagyan, R.; Totrov, M.; Kuznetsov, D. ICM-A new method for protein modeling and design: Applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation. J. Comput. Chem. 1994, 15, 488-506.
48. Jain, A. Surflex: Fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 499-511.
49. Joseph-McCarthy, D.; Thomas, B.E.; Belmarsh, M.; Moustakas, D.; Alvarez, J.C. Pharmacophore-based molecular docking to account for ligand flexibility. Proteins 2003, 51, 172-188.
50. Huang, N.; Shoichet, B.K.; Irwin, J.J. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6789-6801.
51. Cross, J.B.; Thompson, D.C.; Rai, B.K.; Baber, J.C.; Fan, K.Y.; Hu, Y.; Humblet, C. Comparison of several molecular docking programs: Pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 1455-1474.
52. Baker, N.A.; Sept, D.; Joseph, S.; Holst, M.J.; McCammon, J.A. Electrostatics of nanosystems: Application to microtubules and the ribosome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 10037-10041.
53. Canterakis, N. 3D zernike moments and zernike affine invariants for 3D image analysis and recognition. In Proceedings of the 11th Scandinavian Conference on Image Analysis, Kangerlusssuaq, Greenland, 7-11 June 1999; SCIA: Kangerlusssuaq, Greenland, 1999.
54. Novotni, M.; Klein, R. 3D zernike descriptors for content based shape retrieval. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Symposium on Solid Modeling and Applications, Seattle, WA, USA, 16-20 June 2003; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 216-225.
55. Demange, G.; Gale, D.; Sotomayor, M. Multi-item auctions. J. Polit. Econ. 1986, 94, 863-872.
56. Gehlhaar, D.K.; Verkhivker, G.M.; Rejto, P.A.; Sherman, C.J.; Fogel, D.B.; Fogel, L.J.; Freer, S.T. Molecular recognition of the inhibitor ag-1343 by HIV-1 protease: Conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. Chem. Biol. 1995, 2, 317-324.
57. Hu, B.; Lill, M.A. Exploring the potential of protein-based pharmacophore models in ligand pose prediction and ranking. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013, 53, 1179-1190.