Constructing and Validating High-Performance MIEC-SVM Models in Virtual Screening for Kinases: A Better Way for Actives Discovery

Scientific Reports

Volumn 6, Issue , 2016, Pages

  Sun, Huiyong ^a,b   Pan, Peichen ^a   Tian, Sheng ^c   Xu, Lei ^a   Kong, Xiaotian ^c   Li, Youyong ^c   Li, Dan ^a   Hou, Tingjun ^a,b  

^a ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c SOOCHOW UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENZYME INHIBITOR; PHOSPHOTRANSFERASE;

ANTAGONISTS AND INHIBITORS; IC50; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; MOLECULAR DOCKING; PRECLINICAL STUDY; PROCEDURES;

DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; ENZYME INHIBITORS; INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION 50; MOLECULAR DOCKING SIMULATION; PHOSPHOTRANSFERASES;

EID: 84964225053     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/srep24817     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Hou, T. & Xu, X. Recent development and application of virtual screening in drug discovery: an overview. Curr. Pharm. Des. 10, 1011-1033 (2004).
2. Yan, C. et al. Discovery and characterization of small molecules that target the GTPase Ral. Nature 515, 443-447 (2014).
3. Keserü, G. M. & Makara, G. M. The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 203-212 (2009).
4. Bajorath, J. Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 1, 882-894 (2002).
5. Klebe, G. Virtual ligand screening: strategies, perspectives and limitations. Drug Discov. Today 11, 580-594 (2006).
6. Tian, S. et al. Development and evaluation of an integrated virtual screening strategy by combining molecular docking and pharmacophore searching based on multiple protein structures. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 2743-2756 (2013).
7. Chen, S. et al. Identifying Novel Selective Non-Nucleoside DNA Methyltransferase 1 Inhibitors through Docking-Based Virtual Screening. J. Med. Chem. 57, 9028-9041 (2014).
8. Xu, L. et al. Discovery of novel inhibitors targeting the macrophage migration inhibitory factor via structure-based virtual screening and bioassays. J. Med. Chem. 57, 3737-3745 (2014).
9. Ma, D.-L. et al. Virtual screening and optimization of Type II inhibitors of JAK2 from a natural product library. Chem. Commun. 50, 13885-13888 (2014).
10. Shen, M. et al. Discovery of Rho-kinase inhibitors by docking-based virtual screening. Mol. Biosyst. 9, 1511-1521 (2013).
11. Sato, T. et al. Application of support vector machine to three-dimensional shape-based virtual screening using comprehensive threedimensional molecular shape overlay with known inhibitors. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52, 1015-1026 (2012).
12. Kong, D.-X. et al. Do biologically relevant compounds have more chance to be drugs? J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 2376-2381 (2009).
13. Deng, Z.-L. et al. Exploring the biologically relevant chemical space for drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 2820-2828 (2013).
14. Tian, S. et al. Assessing an ensemble docking-based virtual screening strategy for kinase targets by considering protein flexibility. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54, 2664-2679 (2014).
15. Hou, T. et al. Characterization of domain-peptide interaction interface: a case study on the amphiphysin-1 SH3 domain. J. Mol. Biol. 376, 1201-1214 (2008).
16. Hou, T. et al. Characterization of Domain-Peptide Interaction Interface A Generic Structure-based Model to Decipher the Binding Specificity of SH3 Domains. Mol. Cell Proteomics. 8, 639-649 (2009).
17. Xu, Z. et al. Proteome-wide detection of Abl1 SH3-binding peptides by integrating computational prediction and peptide microarray. Mol. Cell Proteomics. 11, O111. 010389 (2012).
18. Ding, B. et al. Characterization of small molecule binding. I. Accurate identification of strong inhibitors in virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 114-122 (2013).
19. Ding, B. et al. Characterizing Binding of Small Molecules. II. Evaluating the Potency of Small Molecules to Combat Resistance Based on Docking Structures. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 1213-1222 (2013).
20. Cowan-Jacob, S. W. et al. Structural biology contributions to the discovery of drugs to treat chronic myelogenous leukaemia. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr. 63, 80-93 (2006).
21. Lee, C. et al. Crystal structure of the ALK (anaplastic lymphoma kinase) catalytic domain. Biochem. J. 430, 425-437 (2010).
22. Smith, A. L. et al. Selective inhibitors of the mutant B-Raf pathway: discovery of a potent and orally bioavailable aminoisoquinoline. J. Med. Chem. 52, 6189-6192 (2009).
23. Liu, T. et al. BindingDB: a web-accessible database of experimentally determined protein-ligand binding affinities. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, D198-D201 (2007).
24. Mysinger, M. M. et al. Directory of useful decoys, enhanced (DUD-E): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking. J. Med. Chem. 55, 6582-6594 (2012).
25. Lagarde, N. et al. Benchmarking Data Sets for the Evaluation of Virtual Ligand Screening Methods: Review and Perspectives. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 55, 1297-1307 (2015).
26. Morris, G. M. et al. AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J. Comput. Chem. 30, 2785-2791 (2009).
27. Morris, G. M. et al. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J. Comput. Chem. 19, 1639-1662 (1998).
28. Sun, H.-Y. et al. Structural and energetic analyses of SNPs in drug targets and implications for drug therapy. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 3343-3351 (2013).
29. Sun, H.-Y. et al. Finding chemical drugs for genetic diseases. Drug Discov. Today 19, 1836-1840 (2014).
30. Hou, X. et al. How to improve docking accuracy of AutoDock4.2: A case study using different electrostatic potentials. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 188-200 (2013).
31. Søndergaard, C. R. et al. Improved treatment of ligands and coupling effects in empirical calculation and rationalization of pKa values. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 7, 2284-2295 (2011).
32. Gasteiger, J. & Marsili, M. Iterative partial equalization of orbital electronegativity - a rapid access to atomic charges. Tetrahedron 36, 3219-3228 (1980).
33. Wang, J. et al. Automatic atom type and bond type perception in molecular mechanical calculations. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 25, 247-260 (2006).
34. Case, D. et al. AMBER 12. University of California, San Francisco (2012).
35. Jakalian, A. et al. Fast, efficient generation of high-quality atomic charges. AM1-BCC model: II. Parameterization and validation. J. Comput. Chem. 23, 1623-1641 (2002).
36. Xu, L. et al. Assessing the Performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA Methods. 3. The Impact of Force Fields and Ligand Charge Models. J. Phys. Chem. B. 117, 8408-8421 (2013).
37. Tsai, K.-C. et al. A comparison of different electrostatic potentials on prediction accuracy in CoMFA and CoMSIA studies. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 45, 1544-1551 (2010).
38. Darden, T. et al. Particle mesh Ewald: An N log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems. J. Chem. Phys. 98, 10089-10092 (1993).
39. Wang, J. et al. How well does a restrained electrostatic potential (RESP) model perform in calculating conformational energies of organic and biological molecules? J. Comput. Chem. 21, 1049-1074 (2000).
40. Wang, J. et al. Development and testing of a general amber force field. J. Comput. Chem. 25, 1157-1174 (2004).
41. Jorgensen, W. L. et al. Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J. Chem. Phys. 79, 926-935 (1983).
42. Hou, T. et al. Characterization of domain-peptide interaction interface: prediction of SH3 domain-mediated protein-protein interaction network in yeast by generic structure-based models. J. Proteome Res. 11, 2982-2995 (2012).
43. Li, N. et al. Characterization of PDZ domain-peptide interaction interface based on energetic patterns. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 79, 3208-3220 (2011).
44. Onufriev, A. et al. Exploring protein native states and large-scale conformational changes with a modified generalized born model. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 55, 383-394 (2004).
45. Gohlke, H. et al. Insights into protein-protein binding by binding free energy calculation and free energy decomposition for the Ras-Raf and Ras-RalGDS complexes. J. Mol. Biol. 330, 891-914 (2003).
46. Sun, H. et al. Assessing the Performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA Methods. 4. Accuracies of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA Methodologies Evaluated by Various Simulation Protocols using PDBbind Data Set. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 16719-16729 (2014).
47. Sun, H. et al. Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 5. Improved docking performance using high solute dielectric constant MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA rescoring. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 22035-22045 (2014).
48. Sgobba, M. et al. Application of a post-docking procedure based on MM-PBSA and MM-GBSA on single and multiple protein conformations. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 58, 431-440 (2012).
49. Zhang, X. et al. Towards fully automated high performance computing drug discovery: A massively parallel virtual screening pipeline for docking and MM/GBSA rescoring to improve enrichment. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54, 324-337 (2013).
50. Vapnik, V. The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer Science & Business Media, (2013).
51. Cortes, C. & Vapnik, V. Support-vector networks. Machine learning 20, 273-297 (1995).
52. Chang, C.-C. & Lin, C.-J. LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines. ACM T. Intel. Syst. Tec. 2, 1-27 (2001).
53. Han, L. Y. et al. Support vector machines approach for predicting druggable proteins: recent progress in its exploration and investigation of its usefulness. Drug Discov. Today 12, 304-313 (2007).
54. Li, X. et al. In silico prediction of chemical acute oral toxicity using multi-classification methods. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54, 1061-1069 (2014).
55. Hou, T. et al. Predicting drug resistance of the HIV-1 protease using molecular interaction energy components. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 74, 837-846 (2009).
56. Zang, Q. et al. Binary classification of a large collection of environmental chemicals from estrogen receptor assays by quantitative structure-activity relationship and machine learning methods. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 3244-3261 (2013).
57. Walters, W. P. et al. Virtual screening-an overview. Drug Discov.Today. 3, 160-178 (1998).
58. Tian, S. et al. Drug-likeness analysis of traditional Chinese medicines: prediction of drug-likeness using machine learning approaches. Mol. Pharm. 9, 2875-2886 (2012).
59. Apweiler, R. et al. The universal protein resource (UniProt) in 2010. Nucleic Acids. Res. 38, 142-148 (2010).
60. Kong, X. et al. Importance of protein flexibility in ranking inhibitor affinities: modeling the binding mechanisms of piperidine carboxamides as Type I1/2 ALK inhibitors. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 17, 6098-6113 (2015).
61. Shen, M. et al. Discovery of Novel ROCK1 Inhibitors via Integrated Virtual Screening Strategy and Bioassays. Sci. Rep. 5 (2015).
62. Sun, H. et al. Directly-binding rather than Induced-fit dominated binding affinity difference in (S) and (R)-crizotinib bound MTH1. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 12, 851-860 (2016).
63. Lin, Y.-L. & Roux, B. Computational Analysis of the Binding Specificity of Gleevec to Abl, c-Kit, Lck, and c-Src Tyrosine Kinases. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 14741-14753 (2013).
64. Kong, X. et al. Molecular principle of the cyclin-dependent kinase selectivity of 4-(thiazol-5-yl)-2-(phenylamino) pyrimidine-5- carbonitrile derivatives revealed by molecular modeling studies. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 2034-2046 (2016).
65. Sun, H. et al. Insight into Crizotinib Resistance Mechanisms Caused by Three Mutations in ALK Tyrosine Kinase using Free Energy Calculation Approaches. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 2376-2389 (2013).
66. Sun, H. et al. P-loop conformation governed crizotinib resistance in G2032R-mutated ROS1 tyrosine kinase: clues from free energy landscape. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003729 (2014).
67. Sun, H. Y. & Ji, F. Q. A molecular dynamics investigation on the crizotinib resistance mechanism of C1156Y mutation in ALK. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 423, 319-324 (2012).
68. Li, D. et al. ADMET evaluation in drug discovery. 13. Development of in silico prediction models for p-glycoprotein substrates. Mol. Pharm. 11, 716-726 (2014).