Literature DB >> 21214225

PHOENIX: a scoring function for affinity prediction derived using high-resolution crystal structures and calorimetry measurements.

Yat T Tang1, Garland R Marshall.   

Abstract

Binding affinity prediction is one of the most critical components to computer-aided structure-based drug design. Despite advances in first-principle methods for predicting binding affinity, empirical scoring functions that are fast and only relatively accurate are still widely used in structure-based drug design. With the increasing availability of X-ray crystallographic structures in the Protein Data Bank and continuing application of biophysical methods such as isothermal titration calorimetry to measure thermodynamic parameters contributing to binding free energy, sufficient experimental data exists that scoring functions can now be derived by separating enthalpic (ΔH) and entropic (TΔS) contributions to binding free energy (ΔG). PHOENIX, a scoring function to predict binding affinities of protein-ligand complexes, utilizes the increasing availability of experimental data to improve binding affinity predictions by the following: model training and testing using high-resolution crystallographic data to minimize structural noise, independent models of enthalpic and entropic contributions fitted to thermodynamic parameters assumed to be thermodynamically biased to calculate binding free energy, use of shape and volume descriptors to better capture entropic contributions. A set of 42 descriptors and 112 protein-ligand complexes were used to derive functions using partial least-squares for change of enthalpy (ΔH) and change of entropy (TΔS) to calculate change of binding free energy (ΔG), resulting in a predictive r2 (r(pred)2) of 0.55 and a standard error (SE) of 1.34 kcal/mol. External validation using the 2009 version of the PDBbind "refined set" (n = 1612) resulted in a Pearson correlation coefficient (R(p)) of 0.575 and a mean error (ME) of 1.41 pK(d). Enthalpy and entropy predictions were of limited accuracy individually. However, their difference resulted in a relatively accurate binding free energy. While the development of an accurate and applicable scoring function was an objective of this study, the main focus was evaluation of the use of high-resolution X-ray crystal structures with high-quality thermodynamic parameters from isothermal titration calorimetry for scoring function development. With the increasing application of structure-based methods in molecular design, this study suggests that using high-resolution crystal structures, separating enthalpy and entropy contributions to binding free energy, and including descriptors to better capture entropic contributions may prove to be effective strategies toward rapid and accurate calculation of binding affinity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21214225      PMCID: PMC3046228          DOI: 10.1021/ci100257s

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


  52 in total

1.  Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions.

Authors:  Philippe Ferrara; Holger Gohlke; Daniel J Price; Gerhard Klebe; Charles L Brooks
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2004-06-03       Impact factor: 7.446

2.  Role of the active-site solvent in the thermodynamics of factor Xa ligand binding.

Authors:  Robert Abel; Tom Young; Ramy Farid; Bruce J Berne; Richard A Friesner
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2008-02-12       Impact factor: 15.419

3.  Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set.

Authors:  Tiejun Cheng; Xun Li; Yan Li; Zhihai Liu; Renxiao Wang
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 4.956

4.  Calculation of protein-ligand binding free energy by using a polarizable potential.

Authors:  Dian Jiao; Pavel A Golubkov; Thomas A Darden; Pengyu Ren
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-04-21       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 5.  Adding calorimetric data to decision making in lead discovery: a hot tip.

Authors:  John E Ladbury; Gerhard Klebe; Ernesto Freire
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2009-12-04       Impact factor: 84.694

6.  Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes.

Authors:  M D Eldridge; C W Murray; T R Auton; G V Paolini; R P Mee
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation.

Authors:  G Jones; P Willett; R C Glen
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1995-01-06       Impact factor: 5.469

Review 8.  Do enthalpy and entropy distinguish first in class from best in class?

Authors:  Ernesto Freire
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2008-08-26       Impact factor: 7.851

9.  Thermodynamic properties of liquid water: an application of a nonparametric approach to computing the entropy of a neat fluid.

Authors:  Lingle Wang; Robert Abel; Richard A Friesner; B J Berne
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2009-06-09       Impact factor: 6.006

10.  Fpocket: an open source platform for ligand pocket detection.

Authors:  Vincent Le Guilloux; Peter Schmidtke; Pierre Tuffery
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-06-02       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  9 in total

1.  Thermodynamic Proxies to Compensate for Biases in Drug Discovery Methods.

Authors:  Sean Ekins; Nadia K Litterman; Christopher A Lipinski; Barry A Bunin
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 4.200

2.  A consistent description of HYdrogen bond and DEhydration energies in protein-ligand complexes: methods behind the HYDE scoring function.

Authors:  Nadine Schneider; Gudrun Lange; Sally Hindle; Robert Klein; Matthias Rarey
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2012-12-27       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 3.  Chemical space of Escherichia coli dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors: New approaches for discovering novel drugs for old bugs.

Authors:  Bharath Srinivasan; Sam Tonddast-Navaei; Ambrish Roy; Hongyi Zhou; Jeffrey Skolnick
Journal:  Med Res Rev       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 12.944

Review 4.  Limiting assumptions in structure-based design: binding entropy.

Authors:  Garland R Marshall
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Three barriers to progress in computer-aided molecular design.

Authors:  Robert D Clark; Marvin Waldman
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2011-12-10       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 6.  Structure-based virtual screening for drug discovery: a problem-centric review.

Authors:  Tiejun Cheng; Qingliang Li; Zhigang Zhou; Yanli Wang; Stephen H Bryant
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 4.009

7.  Four-body atomic potential for modeling protein-ligand binding affinity: application to enzyme-inhibitor binding energy prediction.

Authors:  Majid Masso
Journal:  BMC Struct Biol       Date:  2013-11-08

8.  MoDock: A multi-objective strategy improves the accuracy for molecular docking.

Authors:  Junfeng Gu; Xu Yang; Ling Kang; Jinying Wu; Xicheng Wang
Journal:  Algorithms Mol Biol       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 1.405

9.  Finding High-Quality Metal Ion-Centric Regions Across the Worldwide Protein Data Bank.

Authors:  Sen Yao; Hunter N B Moseley
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 4.411

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.