Literature DB >> 26222931

Choosing the Optimal Rigid Receptor for Docking and Scoring in the CSAR 2013/2014 Experiment.

Matthew P Baumgartner1, Carlos J Camacho1.   

Abstract

The 2013/2014 Community Structure-Activity Resource (CSAR) challenge was designed to prospectively validate advancement in the field of docking and scoring receptor-small molecule interactions. Purely computational methods have been found to be quite limiting. Thus, the challenges assessed methods that combined both experimental data and computational approaches. Here, we describe our contribution to solve three important challenges in rational drug discovery: rank-ordering protein primary sequences based on affinity to a compound, determining close-to-native bound conformations out of a set of decoy poses, and rank-ordering sets of congeneric compounds based on affinity to a given protein. We showed that the most significant contribution to a meaningful enrichment of native-like models was the identification of the best receptor structure for docking and scoring. Depending on the target, the optimal receptor for cross-docking and scoring was identified by a self-consistent docking approach that used the Vina scoring function, by aligning compounds to the closest cocrystal or by selecting the cocrystal receptor with the largest pocket. For tRNA (m1G37) methyltransferase (TRMD), ranking a set of 31 congeneric binding compounds cross-docked to the optimal receptor resulted in a R(2) = 0.67; whereas, using any other of the 13 receptor structures led to almost no enrichment of native-like complex structures. Furthermore, although redocking predicted lower RMSDs relative to the bound structures, the ranking based on multiple receptor structures did not improve the correlation coefficient. Our predictions highlight the role of rational structure-based modeling in maximizing the outcome of virtual screening, as well as limitations scoring multiple receptors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26222931      PMCID: PMC4744803          DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00338

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


  42 in total

1.  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

2.  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

Review 3.  A structural explanation for the twilight zone of protein sequence homology.

Authors:  S Y Chung; S Subbiah
Journal:  Structure       Date:  1996-10-15       Impact factor: 5.006

4.  Ensemble modeling of substrate binding to cytochromes P450: analysis of catalytic differences between CYP1A orthologs.

Authors:  Jahnavi C Prasad; Jared V Goldstone; Carlos J Camacho; Sandor Vajda; John J Stegeman
Journal:  Biochemistry       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 3.162

5.  Jalview Version 2--a multiple sequence alignment editor and analysis workbench.

Authors:  Andrew M Waterhouse; James B Procter; David M A Martin; Michèle Clamp; Geoffrey J Barton
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-01-16       Impact factor: 6.937

6.  Small molecule inhibitors of the MDM2-p53 interaction discovered by ensemble-based receptor models.

Authors:  Anna L Bowman; Zaneta Nikolovska-Coleska; Haizhen Zhong; Shaomeng Wang; Heather A Carlson
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2007-09-29       Impact factor: 15.419

7.  Free Energy Calculations Reveal the Origin of Binding Preference for Aminoadamantane Blockers of Influenza A/M2TM Pore.

Authors:  Paraskevi Gkeka; Stelios Eleftheratos; Antonios Kolocouris; Zoe Cournia
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2013-01-03       Impact factor: 6.006

8.  CSAR benchmark exercise of 2010: combined evaluation across all submitted scoring functions.

Authors:  Richard D Smith; James B Dunbar; Peter Man-Un Ung; Emilio X Esposito; Chao-Yie Yang; Shaomeng Wang; Heather A Carlson
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2011-08-29       Impact factor: 4.956

9.  Fast, scalable generation of high-quality protein multiple sequence alignments using Clustal Omega.

Authors:  Fabian Sievers; Andreas Wilm; David Dineen; Toby J Gibson; Kevin Karplus; Weizhong Li; Rodrigo Lopez; Hamish McWilliam; Michael Remmert; Johannes Söding; Julie D Thompson; Desmond G Higgins
Journal:  Mol Syst Biol       Date:  2011-10-11       Impact factor: 11.429

10.  I-TASSER server for protein 3D structure prediction.

Authors:  Yang Zhang
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2008-01-23       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Predicting the Structures of Glycans, Glycoproteins, and Their Complexes.

Authors:  Robert J Woods
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 60.622

2.  Docking of small molecules to farnesoid X receptors using AutoDock Vina with the Convex-PL potential: lessons learned from D3R Grand Challenge 2.

Authors:  Maria Kadukova; Sergei Grudinin
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Lessons learned in induced fit docking and metadynamics in the Drug Design Data Resource Grand Challenge 2.

Authors:  Matthew P Baumgartner; David A Evans
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2017-11-10       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  Cross-docking benchmark for automated pose and ranking prediction of ligand binding.

Authors:  Shayne D Wierbowski; Bentley M Wingert; Jim Zheng; Carlos J Camacho
Journal:  Protein Sci       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 6.725

Review 5.  Improving small molecule virtual screening strategies for the next generation of therapeutics.

Authors:  Bentley M Wingert; Carlos J Camacho
Journal:  Curr Opin Chem Biol       Date:  2018-06-17       Impact factor: 8.822

6.  Combined Approach of Patch-Surfer and PL-PatchSurfer for Protein-Ligand Binding Prediction in CSAR 2013 and 2014.

Authors:  Xiaolei Zhu; Woong-Hee Shin; Hyungrae Kim; Daisuke Kihara
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 4.956

7.  Optimal strategies for virtual screening of induced-fit and flexible target in the 2015 D3R Grand Challenge.

Authors:  Zhaofeng Ye; Matthew P Baumgartner; Bentley M Wingert; Carlos J Camacho
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  CSAR 2014: A Benchmark Exercise Using Unpublished Data from Pharma.

Authors:  Heather A Carlson; Richard D Smith; Kelly L Damm-Ganamet; Jeanne A Stuckey; Aqeel Ahmed; Maire A Convery; Donald O Somers; Michael Kranz; Patricia A Elkins; Guanglei Cui; Catherine E Peishoff; Millard H Lambert; James B Dunbar
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 4.956

9.  Leishmania infantum 5'-Methylthioadenosine Phosphorylase presents relevant structural divergence to constitute a potential drug target.

Authors:  Hela Abid; Emna Harigua-Souiai; Thouraya Mejri; Mourad Barhoumi; Ikram Guizani
Journal:  BMC Struct Biol       Date:  2017-12-19

10.  A network-centric approach to drugging TNF-induced NF-κB signaling.

Authors:  Nicolas A Pabon; Qiuhong Zhang; J Agustin Cruz; David L Schipper; Carlos J Camacho; Robin E C Lee
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 14.919

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.