Literature DB >> 28668990

Improving binding mode and binding affinity predictions of docking by ligand-based search of protein conformations: evaluation in D3R grand challenge 2015.

Xianjin Xu1, Chengfei Yan1,2, Xiaoqin Zou3,4,5,6.   

Abstract

The growing number of protein-ligand complex structures, particularly the structures of proteins co-bound with different ligands, in the Protein Data Bank helps us tackle two major challenges in molecular docking studies: the protein flexibility and the scoring function. Here, we introduced a systematic strategy by using the information embedded in the known protein-ligand complex structures to improve both binding mode and binding affinity predictions. Specifically, a ligand similarity calculation method was employed to search a receptor structure with a bound ligand sharing high similarity with the query ligand for the docking use. The strategy was applied to the two datasets (HSP90 and MAP4K4) in recent D3R Grand Challenge 2015. In addition, for the HSP90 dataset, a system-specific scoring function (ITScore2_hsp90) was generated by recalibrating our statistical potential-based scoring function (ITScore2) using the known protein-ligand complex structures and the statistical mechanics-based iterative method. For the HSP90 dataset, better performances were achieved for both binding mode and binding affinity predictions comparing with the original ITScore2 and with ensemble docking. For the MAP4K4 dataset, although there were only eight known protein-ligand complex structures, our docking strategy achieved a comparable performance with ensemble docking. Our method for receptor conformational selection and iterative method for the development of system-specific statistical potential-based scoring functions can be easily applied to other protein targets that have a number of protein-ligand complex structures available to improve predictions on binding.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Binding affinity; Binding mode; Drug discovery; Ligand similarity; Molecular docking; Scoring function

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28668990      PMCID: PMC5711532          DOI: 10.1007/s10822-017-0038-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des        ISSN: 0920-654X            Impact factor:   3.686


  30 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

Review 2.  Molecular recognition and docking algorithms.

Authors:  Natasja Brooijmans; Irwin D Kuntz
Journal:  Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct       Date:  2003-01-28

3.  The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates.

Authors:  Renxiao Wang; Xueliang Fang; Yipin Lu; Chao-Yie Yang; Shaomeng Wang
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2005-06-16       Impact factor: 7.446

4.  Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: considering protein structural variations in molecular docking.

Authors:  Sheng-You Huang; Xiaoqin Zou
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2007-02-01

Review 5.  Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative.

Authors:  Maxim Totrov; Ruben Abagyan
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2008-02-25       Impact factor: 6.809

6.  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

7.  Conformer generation with OMEGA: learning from the data set and the analysis of failures.

Authors:  Paul C D Hawkins; Anthony Nicholls
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2012-11-12       Impact factor: 4.956

8.  D3R grand challenge 2015: Evaluation of protein-ligand pose and affinity predictions.

Authors:  Symon Gathiaka; Shuai Liu; Michael Chiu; Huanwang Yang; Jeanne A Stuckey; You Na Kang; Jim Delproposto; Ginger Kubish; James B Dunbar; Heather A Carlson; Stephen K Burley; W Patrick Walters; Rommie E Amaro; Victoria A Feher; Michael K Gilson
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 3.686

9.  CSAR benchmark exercise 2011-2012: evaluation of results from docking and relative ranking of blinded congeneric series.

Authors:  Kelly L Damm-Ganamet; Richard D Smith; James B Dunbar; Jeanne A Stuckey; Heather A Carlson
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 4.956

10.  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

View more
  4 in total

1.  Lessons learned from participating in D3R 2016 Grand Challenge 2: compounds targeting the farnesoid X receptor.

Authors:  Rui Duan; Xianjin Xu; Xiaoqin Zou
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2017-11-10       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Predicting protein-ligand binding modes for CELPP and GC3: workflows and insight.

Authors:  Xianjin Xu; Zhiwei Ma; Rui Duan; Xiaoqin Zou
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 3.  Molecular Docking: Shifting Paradigms in Drug Discovery.

Authors:  Luca Pinzi; Giulio Rastelli
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 5.923

4.  Icotinib, Almonertinib, and Olmutinib: A 2D Similarity/Docking-Based Study to Predict the Potential Binding Modes and Interactions into EGFR.

Authors:  Faisal A Almalki; Ahmed M Shawky; Ashraf N Abdalla; Ahmed M Gouda
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2021-10-24       Impact factor: 4.411

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.