Literature DB >> 19754201

Physical binding pocket induction for affinity prediction.

James J Langham1, Ann E Cleves, Russell Spitzer, Daniel Kirshner, Ajay N Jain.   

Abstract

Computational methods for predicting ligand affinity where no protein structure is known generally take the form of regression analysis based on molecular features that have only a tangential relationship to a protein/ligand binding event. Such methods have limited utility when structural variation moves beyond congeneric series. We present a novel approach based on the multiple-instance learning method of Compass, where a physical model of a binding site is induced from ligands and their corresponding activity data. The model consists of molecular fragments that can account for multiple positions of literal protein residues. We demonstrate the method on 5HT1a ligands by training on a series with limited scaffold variation and testing on numerous ligands with variant scaffolds. Predictive error was between 0.5 and 1.0 log units (0.7-1.4 kcal/mol), with statistically significant rank correlations. Accurate activity predictions of novel ligands were demonstrated using a validation approach where a small number of ligands of limited structural variation known at a fixed time point were used to make predictions on a blind test set of widely varying molecules, some discovered at a much later time point.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19754201      PMCID: PMC2766559          DOI: 10.1021/jm901096y

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


  48 in total

1.  Collecting and harvesting biological data: the GPCRDB and NucleaRDB information systems.

Authors:  F Horn; G Vriend; F E Cohen
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2001-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

2.  Ligand-based structural hypotheses for virtual screening.

Authors:  Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2004-02-12       Impact factor: 7.446

Review 3.  Physics-based methods for studying protein-ligand interactions.

Authors:  Niu Huang; Matthew P Jacobson
Journal:  Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel       Date:  2007-05

4.  5-HT1-like receptors mediate potentiation of cholinergic nerve-mediated contraction of isolated mouse trachea.

Authors:  A J Van Oosterhout; G Hofman; F M Woutersen-Van Nijnanten; F P Nijkamp
Journal:  Eur J Pharmacol       Date:  1991-12-17       Impact factor: 4.432

5.  How well can the accuracy of comparative protein structure models be predicted?

Authors:  David Eramian; Narayanan Eswar; Min-Yi Shen; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 6.725

6.  Differential occupancy of somatodendritic and postsynaptic 5HT(1A) receptors by pindolol: a dose-occupancy study with [11C]WAY 100635 and positron emission tomography in humans.

Authors:  D Martinez; D Hwang; O Mawlawi; M Slifstein; J Kent; N Simpson; R V Parsey; T Hashimoto; Y Huang; A Shinn; R Van Heertum; A Abi-Dargham; S Caltabiano; A Malizia; H Cowley; J J Mann; M Laruelle
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 7.853

7.  A shape-based machine learning tool for drug design.

Authors:  A N Jain; T G Dietterich; R H Lathrop; D Chapman; R E Critchlow; B E Bauer; T A Webster; T Lozano-Perez
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 8.  Derivatives as 5HT1A receptor ligands--past and present.

Authors:  G Caliendo; V Santagada; E Perissutti; F Fiorino
Journal:  Curr Med Chem       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.530

9.  Revisiting automated G-protein coupled receptor modeling: the benefit of additional template structures for a neurokinin-1 receptor model.

Authors:  Benny Kneissl; Bettina Leonhardt; Andreas Hildebrandt; Christofer S Tautermann
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2009-05-28       Impact factor: 7.446

10.  Selecting optimum eukaryotic integral membrane proteins for structure determination by rapid expression and solubilization screening.

Authors:  Min Li; Franklin A Hays; Zygy Roe-Zurz; Linda Vuong; Libusha Kelly; Chi-Min Ho; Renée M Robbins; Ursula Pieper; Joseph D O'Connell; Larry J W Miercke; Kathleen M Giacomini; Andrej Sali; Robert M Stroud
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2008-11-24       Impact factor: 5.469

View more
  8 in total

1.  QMOD: physically meaningful QSAR.

Authors:  Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Does your model weigh the same as a duck?

Authors:  Ajay N Jain; Ann E Cleves
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Surface-based protein binding pocket similarity.

Authors:  Russell Spitzer; Ann E Cleves; Ajay N Jain
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2011-07-18

4.  Extrapolative prediction using physically-based QSAR.

Authors:  Ann E Cleves; Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  Predicting drug-target interactions by dual-network integrated logistic matrix factorization.

Authors:  Ming Hao; Stephen H Bryant; Yanli Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Iterative refinement of a binding pocket model: active computational steering of lead optimization.

Authors:  Rocco Varela; W Patrick Walters; Brian B Goldman; Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 7.446

7.  A structure-guided approach for protein pocket modeling and affinity prediction.

Authors:  Rocco Varela; Ann E Cleves; Russell Spitzer; Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2013-11-09       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  Quantitative surface field analysis: learning causal models to predict ligand binding affinity and pose.

Authors:  Ann E Cleves; Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 3.686

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.