Literature DB >> 21612285

CSAR scoring challenge reveals the need for new concepts in estimating protein-ligand binding affinity.

Fedor N Novikov1, Alexey A Zeifman, Oleg V Stroganov, Viktor S Stroylov, Val Kulkov, Ghermes G Chilov.   

Abstract

The dG prediction accuracy by the Lead Finder docking software on the CSAR test set was characterized by R(2)=0.62 and rmsd=1.93 kcal/mol, and the method of preparation of the full-atom structures of the test set did not significantly affect the resulting accuracy of predictions. The primary factors determining the correlation between the predicted and experimental values were the van der Waals interactions and solvation effects. Those two factors alone accounted for R(2)=0.50. The other factors that affected the accuracy of predictions, listed in the order of decreasing importance, were the change of ligand's internal energy upon binding with protein, the electrostatic interactions, and the hydrogen bonds. It appears that those latter factors contributed to the independence of the prediction results from the method of full-atom structure preparation. Then, we turned our attention to the other factors that could potentially improve the scoring function in order to raise the accuracy of the dG prediction. It turned out that the ligand-centric factors, including Mw, cLogP, PSA, etc. or protein-centric factors, such as the functional class of protein, did not improve the prediction accuracy. Following that, we explored if the weak molecular interactions such as X-H...Ar, X-H...Hal, CO...Hal, C-H...X, stacking and π-cationic interactions (where X is N or O), that are generally of interest to the medicinal chemists despite their lack of proper molecular mechanical parametrization, could improve dG prediction. Our analysis revealed that out of these new interactions only CO...Hal is statistically significant for dG predictions using Lead FInder scoring function. Accounting for the CO...Hal interaction resulted in the reduction of the rmsd from 2.19 to 0.69 kcal/mol for the corresponding structures. The other weak interaction factors were not statistically significant and therefore irrelevant to the accuracy of dG prediction. On the basis of our findings from our participation in the CSAR scoring challenge we conclude that a significant increase of accuracy predictions necessitates breakthrough scoring approaches. We anticipate that the explicit accounting for water molecules, protein flexibility, and a more thermodynamically accurate method of dG calculation rather than single point energy calculation may lead to such breakthroughs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21612285     DOI: 10.1021/ci200034y

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


  8 in total

1.  Lead Finder docking and virtual screening evaluation with Astex and DUD test sets.

Authors:  Fedor N Novikov; Viktor S Stroylov; Alexey A Zeifman; Oleg V Stroganov; Val Kulkov; Ghermes G Chilov
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Docking pose selection by interaction pattern graph similarity: application to the D3R grand challenge 2015.

Authors:  Inna Slynko; Franck Da Silva; Guillaume Bret; Didier Rognan
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 3.  Induced fit docking, and the use of QM/MM methods in docking.

Authors:  Mengang Xu; Markus A Lill
Journal:  Drug Discov Today Technol       Date:  2013-09

4.  Protein-Ligand Scoring with Convolutional Neural Networks.

Authors:  Matthew Ragoza; Joshua Hochuli; Elisa Idrobo; Jocelyn Sunseri; David Ryan Koes
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 4.956

5.  Mathematical deep learning for pose and binding affinity prediction and ranking in D3R Grand Challenges.

Authors:  Duc Duy Nguyen; Zixuan Cang; Kedi Wu; Menglun Wang; Yin Cao; Guo-Wei Wei
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Lessons Learned over Four Benchmark Exercises from the Community Structure-Activity Resource.

Authors:  Heather A Carlson
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2016-06-27       Impact factor: 4.956

7.  Network Analysis Guided Designing of Multi-Targeted Anti-Fungal Agents: Synthesis and Biological Evaluation.

Authors:  Manmeet Singh; Himanshu Verma; Priyanka Bhandu; Manoj Kumar; Gera Narendra; Shalki Choudhary; Pankaj Kumar Singh; Om Silakari
Journal:  J Mol Struct       Date:  2022-09-09       Impact factor: 3.841

8.  Does a more precise chemical description of protein-ligand complexes lead to more accurate prediction of binding affinity?

Authors:  Pedro J Ballester; Adrian Schreyer; Tom L Blundell
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 4.956

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.