Assessing protein-ligand interaction scoring functions with the CASF-2013 benchmark

Nature Protocols

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 666-680

  Li, Yan ^a   Su, Minyi ^a   Liu, Zhihai ^a   Li, Jie ^a   Liu, Jie ^a   Han, Li ^a   Wang, Renxiao ^a,b  

^a SHANGHAI INSTITUTE OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY   (China)

^b MACAU UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Macao)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SCORING FUNCTION; COMPLEX FORMATION; LIGAND BINDING; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR DOCKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN LIGAND INTERACTION; SOFTWARE; BIOLOGY; METABOLISM; PROCEDURES;

LIGAND; PROTEIN; PROTEIN BINDING;

COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; LIGANDS; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEINS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 85044295465     PISSN: 17542189     EISSN: 17502799     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2017.114     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Böhm, H. J. & Stahl, M. The use of scoring functions in drug discovery applications. in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, Vol. 18 (eds. Lipkowitz, K. B. & Boyd, D. B.) 41-88 (Wiley-VCH, 2002).
2. Schulz-Gasch, T. & Stahl, M. Scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions: A critical perspective. Drug Discov. Today Tech. 1, 231-239 (2004).
3. Leach, A. R., Shoichet, B. K. & Peishoff, C. E. Prediction of protein-ligand interactions. docking and scoring: successes and gaps. J. Med. Chem. 49, 5851-5855 (2006).
4. Rajamani, R. & Good, A. C. Ranking poses in structure-based lead discovery and optimization: current trends in scoring function development. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 10, 308-315 (2007).
5. Brooijmans, N. & Kuntz, I. D. Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 32, 335-373 (2003).
6. Muegge, I. & Rarey, M. Small molecule docking and scoring. in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, Vol. 17 (eds. Lipkowitz, K. B. & Boyd, D. B.) 1-60 (Wiley-VCH, 2001).
7. 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. 3, 935-949 (2004).
8. Kuntz, I. D., Blaney, J. M., Oatley, S. J., Langridge, R. & Ferrin, T. E. A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 161, 269-288 (1982).
9. Ewing, T. J. A., Makino, S., Skillman, A. G. & Kuntz, I. D. DOCK 4. 0: search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 15, 411-428 (2001).
10. 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).
11. Morris, G. M. et al. Autodock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J. Comput. Chem. 16, 2785-2791 (2009).
12. Jones, G., Willett, P., Glen, R. C., Leach, A. R. & Taylor, R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J. Mol. Biol. 267, 727-748 (1997).
13. Friesner, R. A. et al. Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 47, 1739-1749 (2004).
14. Halgren, T. A. et al. Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J. Med. Chem. 47, 1750-1759 (2004).
15. Jain, A. N. Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J. Med. Chem. 46, 499-511 (2003).
16. Jain, A. N. Surflex-Dock 2. 1: robust performance from ligand energetic modeling, ring flexibility, and knowledge-based search. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 21, 281-306 (2007).
17. Schneider, G. & Fechner, U. Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 649-663 (2005).
18. Kutchukian, P. S. & Shakhnovich, E. I. De novo design: balancing novelty and confined chemical space. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 5, 789-812 (2010).
19. Liu, J. & Wang, R. Classification of current scoring functions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 55, 475-482 (2015).
20. 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. 42, 5100-5109 (1999).
21. Bissantz, C., Folkers, G. & Rognan, D. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J. Med. Chem. 43, 4759-4767 (2000).
22. Ha, S., Andreani, R., Robbins, A. & Muegge, I. Evaluation of docking/scoring approaches: A comparative study based on MMP3 inhibitors. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 14, 435-448 (2000).
23. Stahl, M. & Rarey, M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 44, 1035-1042 (2001).
24. Bursulaya, B., Totrov, M., Abagyan, R. & Brooks, C. Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 17, 755-763 (2003).
25. Xing, L., Hodgkin, E., Liu, Q. & Sedlock, D. Evaluation and application of multiple scoring functions for a virtual screening experiment. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 18, 333-344 (2004).
26. Hu, X., Balaz, S. & Shelver, W. H. A practical approach to docking of zinc metalloproteinase inhibitors. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 22, 293-307 (2004).
27. Kontoyianni, M., McClellan, L. M. & Sokol, G. S. Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms. J. Med. Chem. 47, 558-565 (2004).
28. Kontoyianni, M., Sokol, G. S. & MCclellan, L. M. Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening. J. Comput. Chem. 26, 11-22 (2005).
29. Cummings, M. D., DesJarlais, R. L., Gibbs, A. C., Mohan, V. & Jaeger, E. P. Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. J. Med. Chem. 48, 962-976 (2005).
30. Evers, A. & Klabunde, T. Structure-based drug discovery using GPCR homology modeling: successful virtual screening for antagonists of the alpha1a adrenergic receptor. J. Med. Chem. 48, 1088-1097 (2005).
31. Warren, G. L. et al. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J. Med. Chem. 49, 5912-5931 (2006).
32. Zhou, Z., Felts, A. K., Friesner, R. A. & Levy, R. M. Comparative performance of several flexible docking programs and scoring functions: enrichment studies for a diverse set of pharmaceutically relevant targets. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47, 1599-1608 (2007).
33. McGaughey, G. B. et al. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47, 1504-1519 (2007).
34. Houston, D. R. & Walkinshaw, M. D. Consensus docking: improving the reliability of docking in a virtual screening context. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 384-390 (2013).
35. Tuccinardi, T., Poli, G., Romboli, V., Giordano, A. & Martinelli, A. Extensive consensus docking evaluation for ligand pose prediction and virtual screening studies. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54, 2980-2986 (2014).
36. Xu, W., Lucke, A. J. & Fairlie, D. P. Comparing sixteen scoring functions for predicting biological activities of ligands for protein targets. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 57, 76-88 (2015).
37. Damm-Ganamet, K. L., Smith, R. D., Dunbar, J. B., Stuckey, J. A. & Carlson, H. A. CSAR benchmark exercise 2011-2012: evaluation of results from docking and relative ranking of blinded congeneric series. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 1853-1870 (2013).
38. Dunbar, J. B. et al. CSAR Data Set Release 2012: ligands, affinities, complexes, and docking decoys. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 1842-1852 (2013).
39. Smith, R. D. et al. CSAR benchmark exercise 2013: evaluation of results from a combined computational protein design, docking, and scoring/ranking challenge. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 56, 1022-1031 (2016).
40. Carlson, H. A. et al. CSAR 2014: A benchmark exercise using unpublished data from pharma. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 56, 1063-1077 (2016).
41. Perez, C. & Ortiz, A. R. Evaluation of docking functions for protein-ligand docking. J. Med. Chem. 44, 3768-3785 (2001).
42. Kellenberger, E., Rodrigo, J., Muller, P. & Rognan, D. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins 57, 225-242 (2004).
43. Perola, E., Walters, W. P. & Charifson, P. S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins 56, 235-249 (2004).
44. Chen, H., Lyne, P. D., Giordanetto, F., Lovell, T. & Li, J. On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46, 401-415 (2006).
45. Onodera, K., Satou, K. & Hirota, H. Evaluations of molecular docking programs for virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47, 1609-1618 (2007).
46. Kim, R. & Skolnick, J. Assessment of programs for ligand binding affinity prediction. J. Comput. Chem. 29, 1316-1331 (2008).
47. Cross, J. B. et al. Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 1455-1474 (2009).
48. Li, X., Li, Y., Cheng, T., Liu, Z. & Wang, R. Evaluation of the performance of four molecular docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes. J. Comput. Chem. 31, 2109-2125 (2010).
49. Plewczynski, D., Lazniewski, M., Augustyniak, R. & Ginalski, K. Can we trust docking results Evaluation of seven commonly used programs on PDBbind database. J. Comput. Chem. 32, 742-755 (2011).
50. Wang, Z. et al. Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: The prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 12964-12975 (2016).
51. 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. 47, 2977-2980 (2004).
52. Wang, R., Fang, X., Lu, Y., Yang, C.-Y. & Wang, S. The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates. J. Med. Chem. 48, 4111-4119 (2005).
53. Liu, Z. H. et al. PDB-wide collection of binding data: current status of the PDBbind database. Bioinformatics 31, 405-412 (2015).
54. Hu, L., Benson, M. L., Smith, R. D., Lerner, M. G. & Carlson, H. A. Binding MOAD (Mother of All Databases). Proteins 60, 333-340 (2005).
55. Benson, M. L. et al. Binding MOAD, a high-quality protein-ligand database. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, D674-D678 (2008).
56. Ahmed, A., Smith, R. D., Clark, J. J., Dunbar, J. B. Jr. & Carlson, H. A. Recent improvements to Binding MOAD: A resource for protein-ligand binding affinities and structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D465-D469 (2014).
57. Cole, J. C., Murray, C. W., Nissink, W. M., Taylor, R. D. & Taylor, R. Comparing protein-ligand docking programs is difficult. Proteins 60, 325-332 (2005).
58. Jain, A. N. Bias, reporting, and sharing: computational evaluations of docking methods. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 22, 201-212 (2008).
59. Todorov, N. P., Monthoux, P. H. & Alberts, I. L. The influence of variations of ligand protonation and tautomerism on protein-ligand recognition and binding energy landscape. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46, 1134-1142 (2006).
60. Brink, T. & Exner, T. E. Influence of protonation, tautomeric, and stereoisomeric states on protein-ligand docking results. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 1535-1546 (2009).
61. Wang, R., Lu, Y. & Wang, S. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 46, 2287-2303 (2003).
62. Wang, R., Lu, Y., Fang, X. & Wang, S. An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein-ligand complexes. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44, 2114-2125 (2004).
63. Ferrara, P., Gohlke, H., Price, D. J., Klebe, G. & Brooks, C. L. Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. J. Med. Chem. 47, 3032-3047 (2004).
64. Marsden, P. M., Puvanendrampillai, D., Mitchell, J. B. O. & Glen, R. C. Predicting protein-ligand binding affinities: A low scoring game Org. Biomol. Chem. 2, 3267-3273 (2004).
65. 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. 46, 380-391 (2006).
66. Dunbar, J. B. et al. CSAR benchmark exercise of 2010: selection of the proteinligand complexes. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 51, 2036-2046 (2011).
67. Smith, R. D. et al. CSAR benchmark exercise of 2010: combined evaluation across all submitted scoring functions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 51, 2115-2131 (2011).
68. Yilmazer, N. D. & Korth, M. Comparison of molecular mechanics, semi-empirical quantum mechanical, and density functional theory methods for scoring protein-ligand interactions. J. Phys. Chem. B 117, 8075-8084 (2013).
69. Cheng, T., Li, X., Li, Y., Liu, Z. & Wang, R. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 1079-1093 (2009).
70. Li, Y. et al. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: I. Compilation of the test set. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54, 1700-1716 (2014).
71. Li, Y., Han, L., Liu, Z. H. & Wang, R. X. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: II. Evaluation methods and general results. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54, 1717-1736 (2014).
72. Berman, H. M., Henrick, K. & Nakamura, H. Announcing the worldwide Protein Data Bank. Nat. Struct. Biol. 10, 980 (2003).
73. Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W. & Feeney, P. J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 46, 3-26 (2001).
74. Wang, R., Lai, L. & Wang, S. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 16, 11-26 (2002).
75. Ain, Q. U., Aleksandrova, A., Roessler, F. D. & Ballester, P. J. Machine-learning scoring functions to improve structure-based binding affinity prediction and virtual screening. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 5, 405-424 (2015).