Literature DB >> 22014038

Statistical potential for modeling and ranking of protein-ligand interactions.

Hao Fan1, Dina Schneidman-Duhovny, John J Irwin, Guangqiang Dong, Brian K Shoichet, Andrej Sali.   

Abstract

Applications in structural biology and medicinal chemistry require protein-ligand scoring functions for two distinct tasks: (i) ranking different poses of a small molecule in a protein binding site and (ii) ranking different small molecules by their complementarity to a protein site. Using probability theory, we developed two atomic distance-dependent statistical scoring functions: PoseScore was optimized for recognizing native binding geometries of ligands from other poses and RankScore was optimized for distinguishing ligands from nonbinding molecules. Both scores are based on a set of 8,885 crystallographic structures of protein-ligand complexes but differ in the values of three key parameters. Factors influencing the accuracy of scoring were investigated, including the maximal atomic distance and non-native ligand geometries used for scoring, as well as the use of protein models instead of crystallographic structures for training and testing the scoring function. For the test set of 19 targets, RankScore improved the ligand enrichment (logAUC) and early enrichment (EF(1)) scores computed by DOCK 3.6 for 13 and 14 targets, respectively. In addition, RankScore performed better at rescoring than each of seven other scoring functions tested. Accepting both the crystal structure and decoy geometries with all-atom root-mean-square errors of up to 2 Å from the crystal structure as correct binding poses, PoseScore gave the best score to a correct binding pose among 100 decoys for 88% of all cases in a benchmark set containing 100 protein-ligand complexes. PoseScore accuracy is comparable to that of DrugScore(CSD) and ITScore/SE and superior to 12 other tested scoring functions. Therefore, RankScore can facilitate ligand discovery, by ranking complexes of the target with different small molecules; PoseScore can be used for protein-ligand complex structure prediction, by ranking different conformations of a given protein-ligand pair. The statistical potentials are available through the Integrative Modeling Platform (IMP) software package (http://salilab.org/imp) and the LigScore Web server (http://salilab.org/ligscore/).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22014038      PMCID: PMC3246566          DOI: 10.1021/ci200377u

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


  111 in total

1.  The Protein Data Bank.

Authors:  H M Berman; J Westbrook; Z Feng; G Gilliland; T N Bhat; H Weissig; I N Shindyalov; P E Bourne
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2000-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

2.  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

3.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy.

Authors:  Richard A Friesner; Jay L Banks; Robert B Murphy; Thomas A Halgren; Jasna J Klicic; Daniel T Mainz; Matthew P Repasky; Eric H Knoll; Mee Shelley; Jason K Perry; David E Shaw; Perry Francis; Peter S Shenkin
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2004-03-25       Impact factor: 7.446

4.  Rapid context-dependent ligand desolvation in molecular docking.

Authors:  Michael M Mysinger; Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 4.956

Review 5.  Docking and scoring--theoretically easy, practically impossible?

Authors:  B Coupez; R A Lewis
Journal:  Curr Med Chem       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.530

6.  OPUS-Ca: a knowledge-based potential function requiring only Calpha positions.

Authors:  Yinghao Wu; Mingyang Lu; Mingzhi Chen; Jialin Li; Jianpeng Ma
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 6.725

Review 7.  Molecular recognition and binding free energy calculations in drug development.

Authors:  B N Dominy
Journal:  Curr Pharm Biotechnol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.837

8.  Influence of protein structure databases on the predictive power of statistical pair potentials.

Authors:  E Furuichi; P Koehl
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  1998-05-01

Review 9.  Empirical potentials and functions for protein folding and binding.

Authors:  S Vajda; M Sippl; J Novotny
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 6.809

10.  Crystal structure of chicken liver dihydrofolate reductase complexed with NADP+ and biopterin.

Authors:  M A McTigue; J F Davies; B T Kaufman; J Kraut
Journal:  Biochemistry       Date:  1992-08-18       Impact factor: 3.162

View more
  20 in total

1.  Optimized atomic statistical potentials: assessment of protein interfaces and loops.

Authors:  Guang Qiang Dong; Hao Fan; Dina Schneidman-Duhovny; Ben Webb; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2013-09-27       Impact factor: 6.937

2.  Yada: a novel tool for molecular docking calculations.

Authors:  S Piotto; L Di Biasi; R Fino; R Parisi; L Sessa; S Concilio
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Integrative structure modeling with the Integrative Modeling Platform.

Authors:  Benjamin Webb; Shruthi Viswanath; Massimiliano Bonomi; Riccardo Pellarin; Charles H Greenberg; Daniel Saltzberg; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 6.725

4.  Aromatic interactions at the ligand-protein interface: Implications for the development of docking scoring functions.

Authors:  Michal Brylinski
Journal:  Chem Biol Drug Des       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 2.817

5.  Error-prone pcr-based mutagenesis strategy for rapidly generating high-yield influenza vaccine candidates.

Authors:  Jianqiang Ye; Feng Wen; Yifei Xu; Nan Zhao; Liping Long; Hailiang Sun; Jialiang Yang; Jim Cooley; G Todd Pharr; Richard Webby; Xiu-Feng Wan
Journal:  Virology       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 3.616

6.  Crystal structure of SsfS6, the putative C-glycosyltransferase involved in SF2575 biosynthesis.

Authors:  Fengbin Wang; Maoquan Zhou; Shanteri Singh; Ragothaman M Yennamalli; Craig A Bingman; Jon S Thorson; George N Phillips
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2013-04-20

7.  Extracting knowledge from protein structure geometry.

Authors:  Peter Røgen; Patrice Koehl
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2013-02-27

8.  Development of the knowledge-based and empirical combined scoring algorithm (KECSA) to score protein-ligand interactions.

Authors:  Zheng Zheng; Kenneth M Merz
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 4.956

9.  The Movable Type Method Applied to Protein-Ligand Binding.

Authors:  Zheng Zheng; Melek N Ucisik; Kenneth M Merz
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2013-12-10       Impact factor: 6.006

Review 10.  Molecular modeling and ligand docking for solute carrier (SLC) transporters.

Authors:  Avner Schlessinger; Natalia Khuri; Kathleen M Giacomini; Andrej Sali
Journal:  Curr Top Med Chem       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.