Literature DB >> 16490206

Probing molecular docking in a charged model binding site.

Ruth Brenk1, Stefan W Vetter, Sarah E Boyce, David B Goodin, Brian K Shoichet.   

Abstract

A model binding site was used to investigate charge-charge interactions in molecular docking. This simple site, a small (180A(3)) engineered cavity in cyctochrome c peroxidase (CCP), is negatively charged and completely buried from solvent, allowing us to explore the balance between electrostatic energy and ligand desolvation energy in a system where many of the common approximations in docking do not apply. A database with about 5300 molecules was docked into this cavity. Retrospective testing with known ligands and decoys showed that overall the balance between electrostatic interaction and desolvation energy was captured. More interesting were prospective docking scre"ens that looked for novel ligands, especially those that might reveal problems with the docking and energy methods. Based on screens of the 5300 compound database, both high-scoring and low-scoring molecules were acquired and tested for binding. Out of 16 new, high-scoring compounds tested, 15 were observed to bind. All of these were small heterocyclic cations. Binding constants were measured for a few of these, they ranged between 20microM and 60microM. Crystal structures were determined for ten of these ligands in complex with the protein. The observed ligand geometry corresponded closely to that predicted by docking. Several low-scoring alkyl amino cations were also tested and found to bind. The low docking score of these molecules owed to the relatively high charge density of the charged amino group and the corresponding high desolvation penalty. When the complex structures of those ligands were determined, a bound water molecule was observed interacting with the amino group and a backbone carbonyl group of the cavity. This water molecule mitigates the desolvation penalty and improves the interaction energy relative to that of the "naked" site used in the docking screen. Finally, six low-scoring neutral molecules were also tested, with a view to looking for false negative predictions. Whereas most of these did not bind, two did (phenol and 3-fluorocatechol). Crystal structures for these two ligands in complex with the cavity site suggest reasons for their binding. That these neutral molecules do, in fact bind, contradicts previous results in this site and, along with the alkyl amines, provides instructive false negatives that help identify weaknesses in our scoring functions. Several improvements of these are considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16490206      PMCID: PMC3025978          DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2006.01.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Biol        ISSN: 0022-2836            Impact factor:   5.469


  59 in total

1.  Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations.

Authors:  C Bissantz; G Folkers; D Rognan
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2000-12-14       Impact factor: 7.446

2.  Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening.

Authors:  M Stahl; M Rarey
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2001-03-29       Impact factor: 7.446

3.  The maximal affinity of ligands.

Authors:  I D Kuntz; K Chen; K A Sharp; P A Kollman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1999-08-31       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  The finer things in X-ray diffraction data collection.

Authors:  J W Pflugrath
Journal:  Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr       Date:  1999-10

5.  XtalView/Xfit--A versatile program for manipulating atomic coordinates and electron density.

Authors:  D E McRee
Journal:  J Struct Biol       Date:  1999 Apr-May       Impact factor: 2.867

Review 6.  High-throughput docking for lead generation.

Authors:  R Abagyan; M Totrov
Journal:  Curr Opin Chem Biol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 7.  What are the dielectric "constants" of proteins and how to validate electrostatic models?

Authors:  C N Schutz; A Warshel
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2001-09-01

8.  Inhibitors of dihydrodipicolinate reductase, a key enzyme of the diaminopimelate pathway of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Authors:  A M Paiva; D E Vanderwall; J S Blanchard; J W Kozarich; J M Williamson; T M Kelly
Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta       Date:  2001-02-09

9.  The particle concept: placing discrete water molecules during protein-ligand docking predictions.

Authors:  M Rarey; B Kramer; T Lengauer
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  1999-01-01

10.  The role of waters in docking strategies with incremental flexibility for carbohydrate derivatives: heat-labile enterotoxin, a multivalent test case.

Authors:  W E Minke; D J Diller; W G Hol; C L Verlinde
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  1999-05-20       Impact factor: 7.446

View more
  24 in total

1.  Outliers in SAR and QSAR: is unusual binding mode a possible source of outliers?

Authors:  Ki Hwan Kim
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2007-03-03       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Rescoring docking hit lists for model cavity sites: predictions and experimental testing.

Authors:  Alan P Graves; Devleena M Shivakumar; Sarah E Boyce; Matthew P Jacobson; David A Case; Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 5.469

Review 3.  Docking Screens for Novel Ligands Conferring New Biology.

Authors:  John J Irwin; Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 7.446

4.  Systematic placement of structural water molecules for improved scoring of protein-ligand interactions.

Authors:  David J Huggins; Bruce Tidor
Journal:  Protein Eng Des Sel       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 1.650

5.  Effect of pH and ligand charge state on BACE-1 fragment docking performance.

Authors:  José L Domínguez; M Carmen Villaverde; Fredy Sussman
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  A Mixed QM/MM Scoring Function to Predict Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity.

Authors:  Seth A Hayik; Roland Dunbrack; Kenneth M Merz
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 6.006

7.  Evaluation of different virtual screening programs for docking in a charged binding pocket.

Authors:  Wei Deng; Christophe L M J Verlinde
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2008-09-27       Impact factor: 4.956

Review 8.  Docking screens: right for the right reasons?

Authors:  Peter Kolb; John J Irwin
Journal:  Curr Top Med Chem       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  Blind prediction of charged ligand binding affinities in a model binding site.

Authors:  Gabriel J Rocklin; Sarah E Boyce; Marcus Fischer; Inbar Fish; David L Mobley; Brian K Shoichet; Ken A Dill
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 5.469

10.  One scaffold, three binding modes: novel and selective pteridine reductase 1 inhibitors derived from fragment hits discovered by virtual screening.

Authors:  Chidochangu P Mpamhanga; Daniel Spinks; Lindsay B Tulloch; Emma J Shanks; David A Robinson; Iain T Collie; Alan H Fairlamb; Paul G Wyatt; Julie A Frearson; William N Hunter; Ian H Gilbert; Ruth Brenk
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2009-07-23       Impact factor: 7.446

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.