Literature DB >> 18642866

Molecular docking of intercalators and groove-binders to nucleic acids using Autodock and Surflex.

Patrick A Holt1, Jonathan B Chaires, John O Trent.   

Abstract

The molecular docking tools Autodock and Surflex accurately reproduce the crystallographic structures of a collection of small molecule ligands that have been shown to bind nucleic acids. Docking studies were performed with the intercalators daunorubicin and ellipticine and the minor groove binders distamycin and pentamidine. Autodock and Surflex dock daunorubicin and distamycin to their nucleic acid targets within a resolution of approximately 2 A, which is similar to the limit of the crystal structure resolution. However, for the top ranked poses, Autodock and Surflex both dock ellipticine into the correct site but in a different orientation compared to the crystal structure. This appears not only to be partly related to the symmetry of the target nucleic acid, as ellipticine is able to dock from either side of the intercalation site, but also due to the shape of the ligand and docking accuracy. Surflex docks pentamidine in a symmetrically equivalent orientation relative to the crystal structure, while Autodock was able to dock this molecule in the original orientation. In the case of the Surflex docking of pentamidine, the initial rmsd is misleading, given the symmetrical structure of pentamidine. Importantly, the ranking functions of both of these programs are able to return a top pose within approximately 2 A rmsd for daunorubicin, distamycin, and pentamidine and approximately 3 A rmsd for ellipticine compared to their respective crystal structures. Some docking challenges and potential pitfalls are explored, such as the importance of hydrogen treatment on ligands as well as the scoring functions of Autodock and Surflex. Overall for this set of complexes, Surflex is preferred over Autodock for virtual screening, as although the results are comparable, Surflex has significantly faster performance and ease of use under the optimal software conditions tested. These experiments show that molecular docking techniques can be successfully extended to include nucleic acid targets, a finding which has important implications for virtual screening applications and in the design of new small molecules to target therapeutically relevant morphologies of nucleic acids.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18642866      PMCID: PMC2755229          DOI: 10.1021/ci800063v

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Inf Model        ISSN: 1549-9596            Impact factor:   4.956


  47 in total

Review 1.  G-quadruplex DNA: a potential target for anti-cancer drug design.

Authors:  H Han; L H Hurley
Journal:  Trends Pharmacol Sci       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 14.819

2.  Validation of automated docking programs for docking and database screening against RNA drug targets.

Authors:  Carsten Detering; Gabriele Varani
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2004-08-12       Impact factor: 7.446

3.  Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy.

Authors:  Esther Kellenberger; Jordi Rodrigo; Pascal Muller; Didier Rognan
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2004-11-01

Review 4.  Competition dialysis: an assay to measure the structural selectivity of drug-nucleic acid interactions.

Authors:  Jonathan B Chaires
Journal:  Curr Med Chem Anticancer Agents       Date:  2005-07

5.  Virtual screening of DNA minor groove binders.

Authors:  David A Evans; Stephen Neidle
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2006-07-13       Impact factor: 7.446

6.  Signposts of docking and scoring in drug design.

Authors:  Osman A B S M Gani
Journal:  Chem Biol Drug Des       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 2.817

7.  Computerized selection of potential DNA binding compounds.

Authors:  P D Grootenhuis; P A Kollman; G L Seibel; R L DesJarlais; I D Kuntz
Journal:  Anticancer Drug Des       Date:  1990-08

8.  Automatic identification and representation of protein binding sites for molecular docking.

Authors:  J Ruppert; W Welch; A N Jain
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 6.725

Review 9.  Molecular mechanisms of antineoplastic action of an anticancer drug ellipticine.

Authors:  Marie Stiborova; Martina Rupertova; Heinz H Schmeiser; Eva Frei
Journal:  Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 1.245

10.  Molecular flexibility in ab initio drug docking to DNA: binding-site and binding-mode transitions in all-atom Monte Carlo simulations.

Authors:  Remo Rohs; Itai Bloch; Heinz Sklenar; Zippora Shakked
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2005-12-13       Impact factor: 16.971

View more
  29 in total

1.  Computational docking simulations of a DNA-aptamer for argininamide and related ligands.

Authors:  H Bauke Albada; Eyal Golub; Itamar Willner
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  In-silico modeling studies of G-quadruplex with soy isoflavones having anticancerous activity.

Authors:  Jyoti Singh Tomar
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2015-07-12       Impact factor: 1.810

3.  Designed compounds for recognition of 10 base pairs of DNA with two at binding sites.

Authors:  Yang Liu; Yun Chai; Arvind Kumar; Richard R Tidwell; David W Boykin; W David Wilson
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2012-03-09       Impact factor: 15.419

4.  A Discovery Funnel for Nucleic Acid Binding Drug Candidates.

Authors:  Patrick A Holt; Robert Buscaglia; John O Trent; Jonathan B Chaires
Journal:  Drug Dev Res       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 4.360

5.  VoteDock: consensus docking method for prediction of protein-ligand interactions.

Authors:  Dariusz Plewczynski; Michał Łaźniewski; Marcin von Grotthuss; Leszek Rychlewski; Krzysztof Ginalski
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 3.376

6.  Pentachlorophenol molecule design with lower bioconcentration through 3D-QSAR associated with molecule docking.

Authors:  Xiaolei Wang; Zhenhua Chu; Jiawen Yang; Yu Li
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 4.223

7.  Comparative analysis of binding affinities between styrene and mammalian CYP2E1 by bioinformatics approaches.

Authors:  Bing Wu; Jie Sun; Shu-Pei Cheng; Ji-Dong Gu; Ai-Min Li; Xu-Xiang Zhang
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2011-03-22       Impact factor: 2.823

8.  Structure-dependent binding of arylimidamides to the DNA minor groove.

Authors:  Yun Chai; Manoj Munde; Arvind Kumar; Leah Mickelson; Sen Lin; Nancy H Campbell; Moloy Banerjee; Senol Akay; Zongying Liu; Abdelbasset A Farahat; Raja Nhili; Sabine Depauw; Marie-Hélène David-Cordonnier; Stephen Neidle; W David Wilson; David W Boykin
Journal:  Chembiochem       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 3.164

9.  Carborane clusters in computational drug design: a comparative docking evaluation using AutoDock, FlexX, Glide, and Surflex.

Authors:  Rohit Tiwari; Kiran Mahasenan; Ryan Pavlovicz; Chenglong Li; Werner Tjarks
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.956

Review 10.  Structure-based drug design: from nucleic acid to membrane protein targets.

Authors:  Magdalena M Dailey; Chayanendu Hait; Patrick A Holt; Jon M Maguire; Jason B Meier; M Clarke Miller; Luigi Petraccone; John O Trent
Journal:  Exp Mol Pathol       Date:  2009-01-31       Impact factor: 3.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.