Literature DB >> 22017385

Cheminformatics meets molecular mechanics: a combined application of knowledge-based pose scoring and physical force field-based hit scoring functions improves the accuracy of structure-based virtual screening.

Jui-Hua Hsieh1, Shuangye Yin, Xiang S Wang, Shubin Liu, Nikolay V Dokholyan, Alexander Tropsha.   

Abstract

Poor performance of scoring functions is a well-known bottleneck in structure-based virtual screening (VS), which is most frequently manifested in the scoring functions' inability to discriminate between true ligands vs known nonbinders (therefore designated as binding decoys). This deficiency leads to a large number of false positive hits resulting from VS. We have hypothesized that filtering out or penalizing docking poses recognized as non-native (i.e., pose decoys) should improve the performance of VS in terms of improved identification of true binders. Using several concepts from the field of cheminformatics, we have developed a novel approach to identifying pose decoys from an ensemble of poses generated by computational docking procedures. We demonstrate that the use of target-specific pose (scoring) filter in combination with a physical force field-based scoring function (MedusaScore) leads to significant improvement of hit rates in VS studies for 12 of the 13 benchmark sets from the clustered version of the Database of Useful Decoys (DUD). This new hybrid scoring function outperforms several conventional structure-based scoring functions, including XSCORE::HMSCORE, ChemScore, PLP, and Chemgauss3, in 6 out of 13 data sets at early stage of VS (up 1% decoys of the screening database). We compare our hybrid method with several novel VS methods that were recently reported to have good performances on the same DUD data sets. We find that the retrieved ligands using our method are chemically more diverse in comparison with two ligand-based methods (FieldScreen and FLAP::LBX). We also compare our method with FLAP::RBLB, a high-performance VS method that also utilizes both the receptor and the cognate ligand structures. Interestingly, we find that the top ligands retrieved using our method are highly complementary to those retrieved using FLAP::RBLB, hinting effective directions for best VS applications. We suggest that this integrative VS approach combining cheminformatics and molecular mechanics methodologies may be applied to a broad variety of protein targets to improve the outcome of structure-based drug discovery studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22017385      PMCID: PMC3264743          DOI: 10.1021/ci2002507

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


  48 in total

Review 1.  Virtual screening and fast automated docking methods.

Authors:  Gisbert Schneider; Hans-Joachim Böhm
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2002-01-01       Impact factor: 7.851

2.  Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking.

Authors:  Renxiao Wang; Yipin Lu; Shaomeng Wang
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2003-06-05       Impact factor: 7.446

3.  Interaction profiles of protein kinase-inhibitor complexes and their application to virtual screening.

Authors:  Claudio Chuaqui; Zhan Deng; Juswinder Singh
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2005-01-13       Impact factor: 7.446

4.  Minimizing false positives in kinase virtual screens.

Authors:  Emanuele Perola
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2006-08-01

5.  Is it possible to increase hit rates in structure-based virtual screening by pharmacophore filtering? An investigation of the advantages and pitfalls of post-filtering.

Authors:  Daniel Muthas; Yogesh A Sabnis; Magnus Lundborg; Anders Karlén
Journal:  J Mol Graph Model       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 2.518

6.  Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection?

Authors:  Andrew C Good; Tudor I Oprea
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  Density-functional theory of the electronic structure of molecules.

Authors:  R G Parr; W Yang
Journal:  Annu Rev Phys Chem       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 12.703

8.  Combining machine learning and pharmacophore-based interaction fingerprint for in silico screening.

Authors:  Tomohiro Sato; Teruki Honma; Shigeyuki Yokoyama
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.956

9.  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

Review 10.  Best Practices for QSAR Model Development, Validation, and Exploitation.

Authors:  Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  Mol Inform       Date:  2010-07-06       Impact factor: 3.353

View more
  12 in total

1.  QSAR model based on weighted MCS trees approach for the representation of molecule data sets.

Authors:  Bernardo Palacios-Bejarano; Gonzalo Cerruela García; Irene Luque Ruiz; Miguel Ángel Gómez-Nieto
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  MedusaDock 2.0: Efficient and Accurate Protein-Ligand Docking With Constraints.

Authors:  Jian Wang; Nikolay V Dokholyan
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 4.956

3.  Quantum Mechanics Approaches to Drug Research in the Era of Structural Chemogenomics.

Authors:  Andrey V Ilatovskiy; Ruben Abagyan; Irina Kufareva
Journal:  Int J Quantum Chem       Date:  2013-06-15       Impact factor: 2.444

4.  The Development of Target-Specific Pose Filter Ensembles To Boost Ligand Enrichment for Structure-Based Virtual Screening.

Authors:  Jie Xia; Jui-Hua Hsieh; Huabin Hu; Song Wu; Xiang Simon Wang
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 4.956

5.  Benchmarking methods and data sets for ligand enrichment assessment in virtual screening.

Authors:  Jie Xia; Ermias Lemma Tilahun; Terry-Elinor Reid; Liangren Zhang; Xiang Simon Wang
Journal:  Methods       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 3.608

6.  Considerations of Protein Subpockets in Fragment-Based Drug Design.

Authors:  Matthew Bartolowits; V Jo Davisson
Journal:  Chem Biol Drug Des       Date:  2015-08-31       Impact factor: 2.817

7.  In silico design of anti-atherogenic biomaterials.

Authors:  Daniel R Lewis; Vladyslav Kholodovych; Michael D Tomasini; Dalia Abdelhamid; Latrisha K Petersen; William J Welsh; Kathryn E Uhrich; Prabhas V Moghe
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 12.479

Review 8.  Compound activity prediction using models of binding pockets or ligand properties in 3D.

Authors:  Irina Kufareva; Yu-Chen Chen; Andrey V Ilatovskiy; Ruben Abagyan
Journal:  Curr Top Med Chem       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  Maximal Unbiased Benchmarking Data Sets for Human Chemokine Receptors and Comparative Analysis.

Authors:  Jie Xia; Terry-Elinor Reid; Song Wu; Liangren Zhang; Xiang Simon Wang
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 4.956

10.  Scoring protein interaction decoys using exposed residues (SPIDER): a novel multibody interaction scoring function based on frequent geometric patterns of interfacial residues.

Authors:  Raed Khashan; Weifan Zheng; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2012-06-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.