Fragment-based docking: Development of the CHARMMing web user interface as a platform for computer-aided drug design

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 54, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 2612-2620

  Pevzner, Yuri ^a   Frugier, Emilie ^b   Schalk, Vinushka ^a,c   Caflisch, Amedeo ^b   Woodcock, H Lee ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c NEW COLLEGE OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPLICATION PROGRAMS; COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY; SOFTWARE PACKAGES; WEBSITES;

COMPUTER AIDED DRUG DESIGN; COMPUTING RESOURCE; GENERALIZED FORCE FIELD; INTERNET CONNECTION; MOLECULAR DOCKING; MULTI-SCALE MODELING; SCIENTIFIC APPLICATIONS; WEB USER INTERFACE;

USER INTERFACES;

COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DRUG DESIGN; INTERNET;

COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; DRUG DESIGN; INTERNET; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84916623136     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci500322k     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Bello, M.; Martínez-Archundia, M.; Correa-Basurto, J. Automated docking for novel drug discovery. Expert Opin. Drug Discovery 2013, 8, 821-834.
2. Moors, E. H. M.; Cohen, A. F.; Schellekens, H. Towards a sustainable system of drug development. Drug Discovery Today 2014, 1-10.
3. DeLano, W. L. The case for open-source software in drug discovery. Drug Discovery Today 2005, 10, 213-217.
4. Geldenhuys, W. J.; Gaasch, K. E.; Watson, M.; Allen, D. D.; Van der Schyf, C. J. Optimizing the use of open-source software applications in drug discovery. Drug Discovery Today 2006, 11, 127-132.
5. Goodsell, D. S.; Olson, A. J. Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing. Proteins 1990, 8, 195-202.
6. Lill, M. A.; Danielson, M. L. Computer-aided drug design platform using PyMOL. J. Comput.-Aided. Mol. Des. 2011, 25, 13-19. (7) Maestro; Schrödinger, LLC: New York, 2013.
7. Discovery Studio Modeling Environment; Accelrys Software, Inc.: San Diego, CA, 2013.
8. Molecular Operating Environment (MOE), 2013.08; Chemical Computing Group, Inc.: Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2013.
9. Ebejer, J.-P.; Fulle, S.; Morris, G. M.; Finn, P. W. The emerging role of cloud computing in molecular modelling. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2013, 44, 177-187.
10. Halgren, T. A. Merck molecular force field. I. Basis, form, scope, parameterization, and performance of MMFF94. J. Comput. Chem. 1996, 17, 490-519.
11. Vanommeslaeghe, K.; Hatcher, E.; Acharya, C.; Kundu, S.; Zhong, S.; Shim, J.; Darian, E.; Guvench, O.; Lopes, P.; Vorobyov, I.; Mackerell, A. D. CHARMM general force field: A force field for druglike molecules compatible with the CHARMM all-atom additive biological force fields. J. Comput. Chem. 2010, 31, 671-690.
12. Knight, J. L.; Brooks, C. L. Validating CHARMM parameters and exploring charge distribution rules in structure-based drug design. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2009, 5, 1680-1691.
13. Wang, J.; Wolf, R. M.; Caldwell, J. W.; Kollman, P. A.; Case, D. A. Development and testing of a general Amber force field. J. Comput. Chem. 2004, 25, 1157-1174.
14. Zoete, V.; Cuendet, M. A.; Grosdidier, A.; Michielin, O. SwissParam: A fast force field generation tool for small organic molecules. J. Comput. Chem. 2011, 32, 2359-2368.
15. Miller, B. T.; Singh, R. P.; Klauda, J. B.; Hodoscek, M.; Brooks, B. R.; Woodcock, H. L. CHARMMing: A new, flexible web portal for CHARMM. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 1920-1929.
16. Brooks, B. R.; Bruccoleri, R. E.; Olafson, B. D.; States, D. J.; Swaminathan, S.; Karplus, M. CHARMM: A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J. Comput. Chem. 1983, 4, 187-217.
17. Brooks, B. R.; Brooks, C. L.; Mackerell, A. D.; Nilsson, L.; Petrella, R. J.; Roux, B.; Won, Y.; Archontis, G.; Bartels, C.; Boresch, S.; Caflisch, A.; Caves, L.; Cui, Q.; Dinner, A. R.; Feig, M.; Fischer, S.; Gao, J.; Hodoscek, M.; Im, W.; Kuczera, K.; Lazaridis, T.; Ma, J.; Ovchinnikov, V.; Paci, E.; Pastor, R. W.; Post, C. B.; Pu, J. Z.; Schaefer, M.; Tidor, B.; Venable, R. M.; Woodcock, H. L.; Wu, X.; Yang, W.; York, D. M.; Karplus, M. CHARMM: The biomolecular simulation program. J. Comput. Chem. 2009, 30, 1545-1614.
18. Miller, B. T.; Singh, R. P.; Schalk, V.; Pevzner, Y.; Sun, J.; Miller, C. S.; Boresch, S.; Ichiye, T.; Brooks, B. R.; Woodcock, H. L., III Webbased computational chemistry education with CHARMMing I: Lessons and tutorial. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014, 10, e1003719.
19. Pickard, F. C., IV; Miller, B. T.; Schalk, V.; Lerner, M. G.; Woodcock, H. L., III; Brooks, B. R. Web-based computational chemistry education with CHARMMing II: Coarse-grained protein folding. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014, 10, e1003738.
20. Perrin, B. S., Jr; Miller, B. T.; Schalk, V.; Woodcock, H. L.; Brooks, B. R.; Ichiye, T. Web-based computational chemistry education with CHARMMing III: Reduction potentials of electron transfer proteins. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014, 10, e1003739.
21. Pevzner, Y.; Santiago, D. N.; Fries, J. S.; Metcalf, R. S.; Daniel, K. G.; Calcul, L.; Woodcock, H. L.; Baker, B. J.; G, W. C.; Brooks, W. H. Virtual target screening to rapidly identify potential protein targets of natural products in drug discovery. AIMS Mol. Sci. 2014, 1, 49-66.
22. Python, Python Software Foundation. www.python.org (accessed August 27, 2014).
23. Django, Django Software Foundation. http://www.djangoproject.com (accessed August 27, 2014).
24. MySQL; Oracle Corporation: Redwood Shores, CA, 2014.
25. MacKerell, A. D.; Bashford, D.; Dunbrack, R. L.; Evanseck, J. D.; Field, M. J.; Fischer, S.; Gao, J.; Guo, H.; Ha, S.; Joseph-McCarthy, D.; Kuchnir, L.; Kuczera, K.; Lau, F. T. K.; Mattos, C.; Michnick, S.; Ngo, T.; Nguyen, D. T.; Prodhom, B.; Reiher, W. E.; Roux, B.; Schlenkrich, M.; Smith, J. C.; Stote, R.; Straub, J.; Watanabe, M.; Wiorkiewicz-Kuczera, J.; Yin, D.; Karplus, M. All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. J. Phys. Chem. B 1998, 102, 3586-3616.
26. Mackerell, A. D.; Feig, M.; Brooks, C. L. Extending the treatment of backbone energetics in protein force fields: Limitations of gas-phase quantum mechanics in reproducing protein conformational distributions in molecular dynamics simulations. J. Comput. Chem. 2004, 25, 1400-1415.
27. Vanommeslaeghe, K.; Raman, E. P.; MacKerell, A. D. Automation of the CHARMM general force field (CGenFF) II: Assignment of bonded parameters and partial atomic charges. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52, 3155-3168.
28. Vanommeslaeghe, K.; MacKerell, A. D. Automation of the CHARMM general force field (CGenFF) I: Bond perception and atom typing. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52, 3144-3154.
29. Yesselman, J. D.; Price, D. J.; Knight, J. L.; Brooks, C. L. MATCH: An atom-typing toolset for molecular mechanics force fields. J. Comput. Chem. 2012, 33, 189-202.
30. Wang, J.; Wang, W.; Kollman, P. A.; Case, D. A. Automatic atom type and bond type perception in molecular mechanical calculations. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2006, 25, 247-260.
31. Hodoscek, M. GENRTF, 2008. http://code.google.com/p/genrtf/(accessed August 27, 2014).
32. Meng, E. C.; Shoichet, B. K.; Kuntz, I. D. Automated docking with grid-based energy evaluation. J. Comput. Chem. 1992, 13, 505-524.
33. Friesner, R. A.; Murphy, R. B.; Repasky, M. P.; Frye, L. L.; Greenwood, J. R.; Halgren, T. A.; Sanschagrin, P. C.; Mainz, D. T. Extra precision glide: Docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6177-6196.
34. Halgren, T. A.; Murphy, R. B.; Friesner, R. A.; Beard, H. S.; Frye, L. L.; Pollard, W. T.; Banks, J. L. Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 1750-1759.
35. 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.; Shaw, D. E.; Francis, P.; Shenkin, P. S. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 1739-1749.
36. Grosdidier, A.; Zoete, V.; Michielin, O. Fast docking using the CHARMM force field with EADock DSS. J. Comput. Chem. 2011, 2149-2159.
37. Wu, G.; Robertson, D. H.; Brooks, C. L.; Vieth, M. Detailed analysis of grid-based molecular docking: A case study of CDOCKERA CHARMm-based MD docking algorithm. J. Comput. Chem. 2003, 24, 1549-1562.
38. O'Boyle, N. M.; Banck, M.; James, C. A.; Morley, C.; Vandermeersch, T.; Hutchison, G. R. Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox. J. Cheminform. 2011, 3, 33-47.
39. Kolb, P.; Caflisch, A. Automatic and efficient decomposition of two-dimensional structures of small molecules for fragment-based high-throughput docking. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 7384-7392.
40. Majeux, N.; Scarsi, M.; Caflisch, A. Efficient electrostatic solvation model for protein-fragment docking. Proteins 2001, 42, 256-268.
41. Budin, N.; Majeux, N.; Caflisch, A. Fragment-based flexible ligand docking by evolutionary optimization. Biol. Chem. 2001, 382, 1365-1372.
42. Dey, F.; Caflisch, A. FLEA-FFLD Leader Clustering. http://www.biochem-caflisch.uzh.ch/download/(accessed August 27, 2014).
43. Charifson, P. S.; Corkery, J. J.; Murcko, M. A.; Walters, W. P. Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 5100-5109.
44. Ece, A.; Sevin, F. The discovery of potential cyclin A/CDK2 inhibitors: A combination of 3D QSAR pharmacophore modeling, virtual screening, and molecular docking studies. Med. Chem. Res. 2013, 22, 5832-5843.
45. Ji, X.; Zheng, Y.; Wang, W.; Sheng, J.; Hao, J.; Sun, M. Virtual screening of novel reversible inhibitors for marine alkaline protease MP. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2013, 46, 125-131.
46. Houston, D. R.; Walkinshaw, M. D. Consensus docking: Improving the reliability of docking in a virtual screening context. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013, 53, 384-390.
47. Friedman, R.; Caflisch, A. Discovery of plasmepsin inhibitors by fragment-based docking and consensus scoring. ChemMedChem. 2009, 4, 1317-1326.
48. Klon, A. E.; Glick, M.; Davies, J. W. Combination of a naive Bayes classifier with consensus scoring improves enrichment of highthroughput docking results. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 4356-4359.
49. OpenPBS, PBS Works. www.openpbs.org (accessed August 27, 2014).
50. TORQUE, Cluster Resources, Inc. (Adaptive Computing, Inc.).http://www.clusterresources.com (accessed August 27, 2014).
51. Hanson, R. M.; Prilusky, J.; Renjian, Z.; Nakane, T.; Sussman, J. L. JSmol and the next-generation Web-based representation of 3D molecular structure as applied to proteopedia. Isr. J. Chem. 2013, 53, 207-216.
52. Nakane, T. GLmol-Molecular Viewer on WebGL/Javascript, version 0.47. http://webglmol.sourceforge.jp/index-en.html (accessed August 27, 2014).
53. Humphrey, W.; Dalke, A.; Schulten, K. VMD: Visual molecular dynamics. J. Mol. Graph. 1996, 14, 33-38.
54. Nissink, J. W. M.; Murray, C.; Hartshorn, M.; Verdonk, M. L.; Cole, J. C.; Taylor, R. A new test set for validating predictions of protein-ligand interaction. Proteins 2002, 49, 457-471.
55. 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.
56. Small-Molecule Drug Discovery Suite 2014-1: Glide; Schrödinger, LLC: New York, 2014.
57. Sastry, G. M.; Adzhigirey, M.; Day, T.; Annabhimoju, R.; Sherman, W. Protein and ligand preparation: parameters, protocols, and influence on virtual screening enrichments. J. Comput.-Aided. Mol. Des. 2013, 27, 221-234.
58. Epik; Schrödinger, LLC: New York, 2013.
59. Impact; Schrödinger, LLC: New York, 2013.
60. Prime; Schrödinger, LLC: New York, 2014.
61. Protein Preparation Wizard, Schrödinger Suite 2013; Schrö-dinger, LLC: New York, 2013.
62. Perola, E.; Walters, W. P.; Charifson, P. S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins 2004, 56, 235-249.
63. Srivastava, H. K.; Chourasia, M.; Kumar, D.; Sastry, G. N. Comparison of computational methods to model DNA minor groove binders. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2011, 51, 558-571.
64. Neale, D. S.; Thompson, P. E.; White, P. J.; Chalmers, D. K.; Yuriev, E.; Manallack, D. T. Binding mode prediction of PDE4 inhibitors: A comparison of modelling methods. Aust. J. Chem. 2010, 63, 396-404.
65. Shoichet, B. K. Virtual screening of chemical libraries. Nature 2004, 432, 862-865.
66. Kolb, P.; Kipouros, C. B.; Huang, D.; Caflisch, A. Structurebased tailoring of compound libraries for high-throughput screening: discovery of novel EphB4 kinase inhibitors. Proteins 2008, 73, 11-18.
67. Zhao, H.; Dong, J.; Lafleur, K.; Nevado, C.; Caflisch, A. Discovery of a novel chemotype of tyrosine kinase inhibitors by fragment-based docking and molecular dynamics. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2012, 3, 834-838.
68. Zhao, H.; Gartenmann, L.; Dong, J.; Spiliotopoulos, D.; Caflisch, A. Discovery of BRD4 bromodomain inhibitors by fragmentbased high-throughput docking. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2014, 24, 2493-2496.