Literature DB >> 12213058

DrugScore meets CoMFA: adaptation of fields for molecular comparison (AFMoC) or how to tailor knowledge-based pair-potentials to a particular protein.

Holger Gohlke1, Gerhard Klebe.   

Abstract

The development of a new tailor-made scoring function to predict binding affinities of protein-ligand complexes is described. Knowledge-based pair-potentials are specifically adapted to a particular protein by considering additional ligand-based information. The formalism applied to derive the new function is similar to the well-known CoMFA approach, however, the fields used in the approach originate from the protein environment (and not from the aligned ligands as in CoMFA, thus, a "reverse" CoMFA (= AFMoC) named Adaptation of Fields for Molecular Comparison is performed). A regular-spaced grid is placed into the binding site and knowledge-based pair-potentials between protein atoms and ligand atom probes are mapped onto the grid intersections resulting in "potential fields". By multiplying distance-dependent atom-type properties of actual ligands docked into the binding site with the neighboring grid values, "interaction fields" are produced from the original "potential fields". In a PLS analysis, these atom-type specific interaction fields are correlated to the actual binding affinities of the embedded ligands, resulting in individual weighting factors for each field value. As in CoMFA, the results of the analysis can be interpreted in graphical terms by contribution maps, and binding affinities of novel ligands are predicted by applying the derived 3D QSAR equation. The scope of the new method is demonstrated using thermolysin and glycogen phosphorylase b as test examples. Impressive improvements of the predictive power for affinity prediction can be achieved compared to the application of the original knowledge-based potentials by considering a sample set of only 15 known training ligands. Thus, with growing information about the drug target studied, the new method allows one to move gradually from generally valid to protein-specifically adapted pair-potentials, depending on the amount of training information available and its degree of structural diversity. In addition, convincing predictive power is also achieved for ligand poses generated by automatic docking tools.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12213058     DOI: 10.1021/jm020808p

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Chem        ISSN: 0022-2623            Impact factor:   7.446


  22 in total

1.  Development of biologically active compounds by combining 3D QSAR and structure-based design methods.

Authors:  Wolfgang Sippl
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Fragment-guided approach to incorporating structural information into a CoMFA study: BACE-1 as an example.

Authors:  Lívia Barros Salum; Napoleão Fonseca Valadares
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 3.  Pushing the boundaries of 3D-QSAR.

Authors:  Richard D Cramer; Bernd Wendt
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2007-01-26       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  A comprehensive analysis of the thermodynamic events involved in ligand-receptor binding using CoRIA and its variants.

Authors:  Jitender Verma; Vijay M Khedkar; Arati S Prabhu; Santosh A Khedkar; Alpeshkumar K Malde; Evans C Coutinho
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-01-25       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  A ligand's-eye view of protein binding.

Authors:  Robert D Clark
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-01-24       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Scoring confidence index: statistical evaluation of ligand binding mode predictions.

Authors:  Maria I Zavodszky; Andrew W Stumpff-Kane; David J Lee; Michael Feig
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to?

Authors:  Artem Cherkasov; Eugene N Muratov; Denis Fourches; Alexandre Varnek; Igor I Baskin; Mark Cronin; John Dearden; Paola Gramatica; Yvonne C Martin; Roberto Todeschini; Viviana Consonni; Victor E Kuz'min; Richard Cramer; Romualdo Benigni; Chihae Yang; James Rathman; Lothar Terfloth; Johann Gasteiger; Ann Richard; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2014-01-06       Impact factor: 7.446

8.  The continuous molecular fields approach to building 3D-QSAR models.

Authors:  Igor I Baskin; Nelly I Zhokhova
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 3.686

9.  Exploring the binding of HIV-1 integrase inhibitors by comparative residue interaction analysis (CoRIA).

Authors:  Devendra K Dhaked; Jitender Verma; Anil Saran; Evans C Coutinho
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2008-12-02       Impact factor: 1.810

10.  Binding affinity prediction with property-encoded shape distribution signatures.

Authors:  Sourav Das; Michael P Krein; Curt M Breneman
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2010-02-22       Impact factor: 4.956

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.