Literature DB >> 27559831

Prediction of Protein Pairs Sharing Common Active Ligands Using Protein Sequence, Structure, and Ligand Similarity.

Yu-Chen Chen1, Robert Tolbert2, Alex M Aronov3, Georgia McGaughey3, W Patrick Walters3, Lidio Meireles1.   

Abstract

We benchmarked the ability of comparative computational approaches to correctly discriminate protein pairs sharing a common active ligand (positive protein pairs) from protein pairs with no common active ligands (negative protein pairs). Since the target and the off-targets of a drug share at least a common ligand, i.e., the drug itself, the prediction of positive protein pairs may help identify off-targets. We evaluated representative protein-centric and ligand-centric approaches, including (1) 2D and 3D ligand similarity, (2) several measures of protein sequence similarity in conjunction with different sequence sources (e.g., full protein sequence versus binding site residues), and (3) a newly described pocket shape similarity and alignment program called SiteHopper. While the sequence-based alignment of pocket residues achieved the best overall performance, SiteHopper outperformed sequence-based approaches for unrelated proteins with only 20-30% pocket residue identity. Analogously, among ligand-centric approaches, path-based fingerprints achieved the best overall performance, but ROCS-based ligand shape similarity outperformed path-based fingerprints for structurally dissimilar ligands (Tanimoto 25%-40%). A significant drop in recognition performance was observed for ligand-centric approaches when PDB ligands were used instead of ChEMBL ligands. Finally, we analyzed the relationship between pocket shape and ligand shape in our data set and found that similar ligands tend to bind to similar pockets while similar pockets may accept a range of different-shaped ligands.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27559831     DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00118

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


  3 in total

1.  A benchmark driven guide to binding site comparison: An exhaustive evaluation using tailor-made data sets (ProSPECCTs).

Authors:  Christiane Ehrt; Tobias Brinkjost; Oliver Koch
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 4.475

2.  On the Integration of In Silico Drug Design Methods for Drug Repurposing.

Authors:  Eric March-Vila; Luca Pinzi; Noé Sturm; Annachiara Tinivella; Ola Engkvist; Hongming Chen; Giulio Rastelli
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 5.810

Review 3.  In silico approach in reveal traditional medicine plants pharmacological material basis.

Authors:  Fan Yi; Li Li; Li-Jia Xu; Hong Meng; Yin-Mao Dong; Hai-Bo Liu; Pei-Gen Xiao
Journal:  Chin Med       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 5.455

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.