Literature DB >> 19391631

Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 3. Impact of input ligand conformation, protein flexibility, and water molecules on the accuracy of docking programs.

Christopher R Corbeil1, Nicolas Moitessier.   

Abstract

Several modifications and additions to Fitted1.5 led to the development of Fitted2.6. Among the novel implementations are a matching algorithm-enhanced genetic algorithm and a ring conformational search algorithm. With these various optimizations, we also hoped to remove the biases and to develop a docking program that would provide results (i.e., poses) as independent as possible to the input ligand and protein conformations and used parameters, although keeping the options to provide additional experimental information. These biases were investigated within Fitted2.6 along with FlexX, GOLD, Glide, and Surflex. The input ligand conformation was found to have a major impact on the program accuracy as drops as large as 10-50% were observed with all the programs but Fitted. This comparative study also demonstrates that the accuracy of Fitted is similar to that of other widely used programs. We have also demonstrated that protein flexibility, displaceable water molecules, and ring conformational search algorithms, three of the main Fitted features, significantly increased its accuracy. Finally, we also proposed potential modifications to the available programs to further improve their accuracy in binding mode prediction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19391631     DOI: 10.1021/ci8004176

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


  21 in total

1.  Are predefined decoy sets of ligand poses able to quantify scoring function accuracy?

Authors:  Oliver Korb; Tim Ten Brink; Fredrick Robin Devadoss Victor Paul Raj; Matthias Keil; Thomas E Exner
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Ultrafast protein structure-based virtual screening with Panther.

Authors:  Sanna P Niinivehmas; Kari Salokas; Sakari Lätti; Hannu Raunio; Olli T Pentikäinen
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Improving protein-ligand docking with flexible interfacial water molecules using SWRosettaLigand.

Authors:  Linqing Li; Weiwei Xu; Qiang Lü
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 1.810

4.  Experimental versus predicted affinities for ligand binding to estrogen receptor: iterative selection and rescoring of docked poses systematically improves the correlation.

Authors:  James S Wright; James M Anderson; Hooman Shadnia; Tony Durst; John A Katzenellenbogen
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2013-08-24       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  Molecular motions in drug design: the coming age of the metadynamics method.

Authors:  Xevi Biarnés; Salvatore Bongarzone; Attilio Vittorio Vargiu; Paolo Carloni; Paolo Ruggerone
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  A combined molecular modeling study on a series of pyrazole/isoxazole based human Hsp90α inhibitors.

Authors:  Ying Yang; Huanxiang Liu; Juan Du; Jin Qin; Xiaojun Yao
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2011-03-04       Impact factor: 1.810

7.  Protein and ligand preparation: parameters, protocols, and influence on virtual screening enrichments.

Authors:  G Madhavi Sastry; Matvey Adzhigirey; Tyler Day; Ramakrishna Annabhimoju; Woody Sherman
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  Ligand binding mode prediction by docking: mdm2/mdmx inhibitors as a case study.

Authors:  Nagakumar Bharatham; Kavitha Bharatham; Anang A Shelat; Donald Bashford
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2014-01-21       Impact factor: 4.956

9.  Alchemical Binding Free Energy Calculations in AMBER20: Advances and Best Practices for Drug Discovery.

Authors:  Tai-Sung Lee; Bryce K Allen; Timothy J Giese; Zhenyu Guo; Pengfei Li; Charles Lin; T Dwight McGee; David A Pearlman; Brian K Radak; Yujun Tao; Hsu-Chun Tsai; Huafeng Xu; Woody Sherman; Darrin M York
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 4.956

10.  Docking challenge: protein sampling and molecular docking performance.

Authors:  Khaled M Elokely; Robert J Doerksen
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 4.956

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.