Structural protein-ligand interaction fingerprints (SPLIF) for structure-based virtual screening: Method and benchmark study

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 54, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 2555-2561

  Da, C ^a   Kireev, D ^a  

^a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROTEINS;

ACTIVE COMPOUNDS; DIVERSE DATA SETS; PROTEIN AFFINITY; QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENTS; RELATIVE EFFICIENCY; STRUCTURAL PROTEINS; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY; VIRTUAL SCREENING;

LIGANDS;

LIGAND; PROTEIN;

CHEMISTRY; MOLECULAR DOCKING; PROTEIN CONFORMATION;

LIGANDS; MOLECULAR DOCKING SIMULATION; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS;

EID: 84916636800     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci500319f     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Brooijmans, N.; Kuntz, I. D. Molecular Recognition and Docking Algorithms. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 2003, 32 (1), 335-373.
2. Jain, A. N. Scoring functions for protein-ligand docking. Curr. Protein Pept Sci. 2006, 7 (5), 407-420.
3. Kirchmair, J.; Markt, P.; Distinto, S.; Wolber, G.; Langer, T. Evaluation of the performance of 3D virtual screening protocols: RMSD comparisons, enrichment assessments, and decoy selection What can we learn from earlier mistakes? J. CAMD 2008, 22 (3), 213-228.
4. Scior, T.; Bender, A.; Tresadern, G.; Medina-Franco, J. L.; Martínez-Mayorga, K.; Langer, T.; Cuanalo-Contreras, K.; Agrafiotis, D. K. Recognizing Pitfalls in Virtual Screening: A Critical Review. J. Chem. Inf Model 2012, 52 (4), 867-881.
5. Warren, G.; Andrews, C.; Capelli, A.; Clarke, B.; LaLonde, J. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 49, 5912-5931.
6. 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 (11), 935-949.
7. Ferrara, P.; Gohlke, H.; Price, D.; Klebe, G.; Brooks, C. I. Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 3032-3047.
8. 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 (6), 1455-1474.
9. Kellenberger, E.; Rodrigo, J.; Muller, P.; Rognan, D. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 2004, 57 (2), 225-242.
10. Deng, Z.; Chuaqui, C.; Singh, J. Structural Interaction Fingerprint (SIFt): A Novel Method for Analyzing Three-Dimensional Protein-Ligand Binding Interactions. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 47 (2), 337-344.
11. Mpamhanga, C. P.; Chen, B.; McLay, I. M.; Willett, P. Knowledge-Based Interaction Fingerprint Scoring: A Simple Method for Improving the Effectiveness of Fast Scoring Functions. J. Chem. Inf Model 2006, 46 (2), 686-698.
12. Pérez-Nueno, V. I.; Rabal, O.; Borrell, J. I.; Teixidó, J. APIF: A New Interaction Fingerprint Based on Atom Pairs and Its Application to Virtual Screening. J. Chem. Inf Model 2009, 49 (5), 1245-1260.
13. Marcou, G.; Rognan, D. Optimizing Fragment and Scaffold Docking by Use of Molecular Interaction Fingerprints. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 47 (1), 195-207.
14. Molecular Operating Environment (MOE), v.2010.10; Chemical Computing Group Inc. 2010.
15. Mysinger, M. M.; Carchia, M.; Irwin, J. J.; Shoichet, B. K. Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E): Better Ligands and Decoys for Better Benchmarking. J. Med. Chem. 2012, 55 (14), 6582-6594.
16. 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 (7), 1739-1749.
17. Pipeline Pilot, ver. 8.5, Accelrys Software Inc. 2009.
18. Venkatraman, V.; Pérez-Nueno, V. I.; Mavridis, L.; Ritchie, D. W. Comprehensive Comparison of Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Tools Against the DUD Data set Reveals Limitations of Current 3D Methods. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50 (12), 2079-2093.
19. Oda, A.; Tsuchida, K.; Takakura, T.; Yamaotsu, N.; Hirono, S. Comparison of consensus scoring strategies for evaluating computational models of protein-ligand complexes. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 380.
20. Hawkins, P. C.; Skillman, A. G.; Nicholls, A. Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools. J. Med. Chem. 2007, 50 (1), 74-82.
21. McGaughey, G. B.; Sheridan, R. P.; Bayly, C. I.; Culberson, J. C.; Kreatsoulas, C.; Lindsley, S.; Maiorov, V.; Truchon, J. F.; Cornell, W. D. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf Model 2007, 47 (4), 1504-1519.