Implementing QM in docking calculations: is it a waste of computational time?

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 22, Issue 8, 2017, Pages 1216-1223

  Adeniyi, Adebayo A ^a   Soliman, Mahmoud E S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU NATAL   (South Africa)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALCULATION; INSTRUMENT VALIDATION; PREDICTION; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; MOLECULAR DOCKING; QUANTUM THEORY;

DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; MOLECULAR DOCKING SIMULATION; QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 85026455209     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: 18785832     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2017.06.012     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Cavalli, A., et al. Target-related applications of first principles quantum chemical methods in drug design. Chem. Rev. 106 (2006), 3497–3519.
2. Barberot, C., et al. AlgoGen: a tool coupling a linear-scaling quantum method with a genetic algorithm for exploring non-covalent interactions. Comput. Theor. Chem. 1028 (2014), 7–18.
3. Yuriev, E., et al. Challenges and advances in computational docking: 2009 in review. J. Mol. Recognit. 24 (2011), 149–164.
4. Rao, L., et al. Nonfitting protein-ligand interaction scoring function based on first-principles theoretical chemistry methods: development and application on kinase inhibitors. J. Comput. Chem. 34 (2013), 1636–1646.
5. Fanfrlík, J., et al. A reliable docking/scoring scheme based on the semiempirical quantum mechanical PM6-DH2 method accurately covering dispersion and H-bonding: HIV-1 protease with 22 ligands. J. Phys. Chem. B 114 (2010), 12666–12678.
6. Vasilyev, V., et al. Application of semiempirical quantum chemical methods as a scoring function in docking. Theor. Chem. Acc. 112 (2004), 313–317.
7. Yuriev, E., et al. Improvements, trends, and new ideas in molecular docking: 2012-2013 in review. J. Mol. Recognit., 2015, 10.1002/jmr.2471 Published online March 21.
8. Gabel, J., et al. Beware of machine learning-based scoring functions: on the danger of developing black boxes. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54 (2014), 2807–2815.
9. Cho, A.E., et al. Importance of accurate charges in molecular docking: Quantum Mechanical/Molecular Mechanical (QM/MM) approach. J. Comput. Chem. 26 (2005), 915–931.
10. Zhang, Q., et al. A ternary classification using machine learning methods of distinct estrogen receptor activities within a large collection of environmental chemicals. Sci. Total Environ. 580 (2017), 1268–1275.
11. Wójcikowski, M., et al. Performance of machine-learning scoring functions in structure-based virtual screening. Sci. Rep., 7, 2017, 46710.
12. Zhou, T., et al. Quantum mechanical methods for drug design. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 10 (2010), 33–45.
13. Mazanetz, M.P., Quantum mechanical applications in drug discovery. Markus Lill, A., (eds.) Silico Drug Discovery and Design, 2013, Future Science, 64–79.
14. Raha, K., et al. The role of quantum mechanics in structure-based drug design. Drug Discov. Today 12 (2007), 725–731.
15. Atlam, F.M., et al. Computational simulation of the effect of quantum chemical parameters on the molecular docking of HMG-CoA reductase drugs. J. Mol. Struct. 1075 (2014), 311–326.
16. Beierlein, F., et al. Quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) docking: an evaluation for known test systems. Mol. Phys. 101 (2003), 2469–2480.
17. Yuriev, E., et al. Latest developments in molecular docking: 2010-2011 in review. J. Mol. Recognit. 26 (2013), 215–239.
18. De Benedetti, P.G., et al. Computational quantum chemistry and adaptive ligand modeling in mechanistic QSAR. Drug Discov. Today 15 (2010), 859–866.
19. Bohm, H.J., et al. What can we learn from molecular recognition in protein-ligand complexes for the design of new drugs?. Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. Eng. 35 (1996), 2589–2614.
20. Schramm, V.L., Enzymatic transition states and transition state analog design. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 67 (1998), 693–720.
21. Schramm, V.L., Enzymatic transition states: thermodynamics, dynamics and analogue design. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 433 (2005), 13–26.
22. Sulpizi, M., et al. The rational of catalytic activity of herpes simplex virus thymidinE KINASE: a combined biochemical and quantum chemical study. J. Biol. Chem. 276 (2001), 21692–21697.
23. Bliznyuk, A.A., et al. Combining docking and molecular dynamic simulations in drug design. Med. Res. Rev. 26 (2006), 531–568.
24. Zhou, T., et al. An induced-fit docking method for refining drug-receptor interactions derived from maxwellian-assessor nanoprobes (quantum mechanics-based criterion assessment) placed over adaptive intervals of molecular dynamics sampling. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 10 (2014), 171a–172a.
25. Klein, C.D.P., et al. Protonation states of methionine aminopeptidase and their relevance for inhibitor binding and catalytic activity. J. Biol. Chem. 278 (2003), 47862–47867.
26. Czodrowski, P., et al. Atypical protonation states in the active site of HIV-1 protease: a computational study. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47 (2007), 1590–1598.
27. Dudev, T., et al. Metal binding affinity and selectivity in metalloproteins: insights from computational studies. Annu. Rev. Biophys 37 (2008), 97–116.
28. Seebeck, B., et al. Modeling of metal interaction geometries for protein-ligand docking. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet 71 (2008), 1237–1254.
29. Fischer, B., et al. Receptor-specific scoring functions derived from quantum chemical models improve affinity estimates for in-silico drug discovery. Proteins 69 (2007), 1264–1272.
30. Kuechler, E.R., et al. Charge-dependent many-body exchange and dispersion interactions in combined QM/MM simulations. J. Chem. Phys., 143, 2015, 234111.
31. Mucs, D., et al. The application of quantum mechanics in structure-based drug design. Expert Opin. Drug Discov 8 (2013), 263–276.
32. Correa-Basurto, J., et al. QSAR, docking, dynamic simulation and quantum mechanics studies to explore the recognition properties of cholinesterase binding sites. Chem. Biol. Interact. 209 (2014), 1–13.
33. Zeng, G.H., et al. Binding conformations, QSAR, and molecular design of Alkene-3- quinolinecarbonitriles as Src inhibitors. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 113 (2013), 1467–1478.
34. Ponder, J.W., et al. Force fields for protein simulations. Adv. Protein Chem. 66 (2003), 27–85.
35. Ryjacek, F., et al. New parameterization of the Cornell et al: empirical force field covering amino group nonplanarity in nucleic acid bases. J. Comput. Chem. 24 (2003), 1891–1901.
36. Maple, J.R., et al. Derivation of force fields for molecular mechanics and dynamics from ab initio energy surfaces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 85 (1988), 5350–5354.
37. Palmo, K., et al. Potential energy functions: from consistent force fields to spectroscopically determined polarizable force fields. Biopolymers 68 (2003), 383–394.
38. Maurer, P., et al. Automated parametrization of biomolecular force fields from quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics (QM/MM) simulations through force matching. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 3 (2007), 628–639.
39. Vanommeslaeghe, K., et al. CHARMM general force field: a force field for drug-like molecules compatible with the CHARMM all-atom additive biological force fields. J. Comput. Chem. 31 (2010), 671–690.
40. Taylor, R.D., et al. A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 16 (2002), 151–166.
41. Raha, K., et al. A quantum mechanics-based scoring function: study of zinc ion-mediated ligand binding. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126 (2004), 1020–1021.
42. Fox, S., et al. First principles-based calculations of free energy of binding: application to ligand binding in a self-assembling superstructure. J. Chem. Theory Comput 7 (2011), 1102–1108.
43. Raha, K., et al. Large-scale validation of a quantum mechanics based scoring function: predicting the binding affinity and the binding mode of a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005), 4558–4575.
44. Brahmkshatriya, P.S., et al. Quantum mechanical scoring: structural and energetic insights into cyclin-dependent kinase 2 inhibition by pyrazolo [1,5-a]pyrimidines. Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des. 9 (2013), 118–129.
45. Kumar, S., et al. Structure based development of phenyl-imidazole-derived inhibitors of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase. J. Med. Chem. 51 (2008), 4968–4977.
46. Irwin, J.J., et al. ZINC: a free tool to discover chemistry for biology. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52 (2012), 1757–1768.
47. Villar, R., et al. Are AM1 ligand-protein binding enthalpies good enough for use in the rational design of new drugs?. J. Comput. Chem. 26 (2005), 1347–1358.
48. Nagy, G., et al. Theoretical design of a specific DNA-Zinc-finger protein interaction with semi-empirical quantum chemical methods. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 29 (2011), 928–934.
49. Curioni, A., et al. Enhancing the accuracy of virtual screening: molecular dynamics with quantum-refined force fields. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 18 (2005), 773–784.
50. Tripathi, S.K., et al. Comparative analysis of various electrostatic potentials on docking precision against cyclin-dependent kinase 2 protein: a multiple docking approach. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 85 (2015), 107–118.
51. Kumar, A., et al. Computational fragment-based screening using RosettaLigand: the SAMPL3 challenge. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 26 (2012), 603–616.
52. Chung, J.Y., et al. In silico binding free energy predictability with Π–Π interaction energy-augmented scoring function: benzimidazole Raf inhibitors as a case study. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 22 (2012), 3278–3283.
53. Hou, X., et al. How to improve docking accuracy of autodock4.2: a case study using different electrostatic potentials. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53 (2013), 188–200.
54. Bikadi, Z., et al. Application of the PM6 semi-empirical method to modeling proteins enhances docking accuracy of AutoDock. J. Cheminform. 1 (2009), 1–16.
55. Wang, J., et al. Flexible ligand docking: a multistep strategy approach. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 36 (1999), 1–19.
56. Kurczab, R., The evaluation of QM/MM-driven molecular docking combined with MM/GBSA calculations as a halogen-bond scoring strategy. Acta Crystallogr. B B73 (2017), 188–194.
57. Adeniyi, A.A., et al. An insight into the anticancer activities of Ru (II)-based metallocompounds using docking methods. Molecules 18 (2013), 10829–10856.
58. Hensen, C., et al. A combined QM/MM approach to protein-ligand interactions: polarization effects of the HIV-1 protease on selected high affinity inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004), 6673–6680.
59. Irwin, J.J., et al. Virtual screening against metalloenzymes for inhibitors and substrates. Biochemistry 44 (2005), 12316–12328.
60. Cho, A.E., et al. Extension of QM/MM docking and its applications to metalloproteins. J. Comput. Chem. 30 (2009), 2609–2616.
61. Toney, J.H., et al. Succinic acids as potent inhibitors of plasmid-borne IMP-1 metallo-β-lactamase. J. Biol. Chem. 276 (2001), 31913–31918.
62. Natesan, S., et al. Binding affinity prediction for ligands and receptors forming tautomers and ionization species: inhibition of mitogen-activated protein kinase-activated protein kinase 2 (MK2). J. Med. Chem. 55 (2012), 2035–2047.
63. Mikulskis, P., et al. A semiempirical approach to ligand-binding affinities: dependence on the Hamiltonian and corrections. J. Comput. Chem. 33 (2012), 1179–1189.
64. Thiriot, E., et al. Combining a genetic algorithm with a linear scaling semiempirical method for protein-ligand docking. Theochem 898 (2009), 31–41.
65. Dixon, S.L., et al. Fast, accurate semiempirical molecular orbital calculations for macromolecules. J. Chem. Phys., 107, 1997, 879.
66. McNamara, J.P., et al. Semiempirical molecular orbital scheme to study lanthanide(III) complexes: PM3 parameters for europium, gadolinium, and ytterbium. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 3 (2007), 1014–1027.