Literature DB >> 29040432

Machine learning accelerates MD-based binding pose prediction between ligands and proteins.

Kei Terayama1, Hiroaki Iwata2, Mitsugu Araki3, Yasushi Okuno3,4, Koji Tsuda1,5,6.   

Abstract

Motivation: Fast and accurate prediction of protein-ligand binding structures is indispensable for structure-based drug design and accurate estimation of binding free energy of drug candidate molecules in drug discovery. Recently, accurate pose prediction methods based on short Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations, such as MM-PBSA and MM-GBSA, among generated docking poses have been used. Since molecular structures obtained from MD simulation depend on the initial condition, taking the average over different initial conditions leads to better accuracy. Prediction accuracy of protein-ligand binding poses can be improved with multiple runs at different initial velocity.
Results: This paper shows that a machine learning method, called Best Arm Identification, can optimally control the number of MD runs for each binding pose. It allows us to identify a correct binding pose with a minimum number of total runs. Our experiment using three proteins and eight inhibitors showed that the computational cost can be reduced substantially without sacrificing accuracy. This method can be applied for controlling all kinds of molecular simulations to obtain best results under restricted computational resources. Availability and implementation: Code and data are available on GitHub at https://github.com/tsudalab/bpbi. Contact: terayama@cbms.k.u-tokyo.ac.jp or tsuda@k.u-tokyo.ac.jp. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
© The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29040432      PMCID: PMC6030886          DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx638

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioinformatics        ISSN: 1367-4803            Impact factor:   6.937


  28 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.  Single-molecule pulling simulations can discern active from inactive enzyme inhibitors.

Authors:  Francesco Colizzi; Remo Perozzo; Leonardo Scapozza; Maurizio Recanatini; Andrea Cavalli
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2010-06-02       Impact factor: 15.419

3.  Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search.

Authors:  David Silver; Aja Huang; Chris J Maddison; Arthur Guez; Laurent Sifre; George van den Driessche; Julian Schrittwieser; Ioannis Antonoglou; Veda Panneershelvam; Marc Lanctot; Sander Dieleman; Dominik Grewe; John Nham; Nal Kalchbrenner; Ilya Sutskever; Timothy Lillicrap; Madeleine Leach; Koray Kavukcuoglu; Thore Graepel; Demis Hassabis
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Virtual screening using molecular simulations.

Authors:  Tianyi Yang; Johnny C Wu; Chunli Yan; Yuanfeng Wang; Ray Luo; Michael B Gonzales; Kevin N Dalby; Pengyu Ren
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2011-04-12

5.  Massively parallel computation of absolute binding free energy with well-equilibrated states.

Authors:  Hideaki Fujitani; Yoshiaki Tanida; Azuma Matsuura
Journal:  Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys       Date:  2009-02-26

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.  Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 3. The impact of force fields and ligand charge models.

Authors:  Lei Xu; Huiyong Sun; Youyong Li; Junmei Wang; Tingjun Hou
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2013-07-08       Impact factor: 2.991

Review 8.  Virtual screening strategies in drug discovery: a critical review.

Authors:  A Lavecchia; C Di Giovanni
Journal:  Curr Med Chem       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 4.530

9.  A new method for predicting binding affinity in computer-aided drug design.

Authors:  J Aqvist; C Medina; J E Samuelsson
Journal:  Protein Eng       Date:  1994-03

10.  Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field.

Authors:  Kresten Lindorff-Larsen; Stefano Piana; Kim Palmo; Paul Maragakis; John L Klepeis; Ron O Dror; David E Shaw
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2010-06
View more
  4 in total

1.  In silico Prediction, Characterization, Molecular Docking, and Dynamic Studies on Fungal SDRs as Novel Targets for Searching Potential Fungicides Against Fusarium Wilt in Tomato.

Authors:  Mohd Aamir; Vinay Kumar Singh; Manish Kumar Dubey; Mukesh Meena; Sarvesh Pratap Kashyap; Sudheer Kumar Katari; Ram Sanmukh Upadhyay; Amineni Umamaheswari; Surendra Singh
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 5.810

Review 2.  Application of MM-PBSA Methods in Virtual Screening.

Authors:  Giulio Poli; Carlotta Granchi; Flavio Rizzolio; Tiziano Tuccinardi
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 4.411

3.  DROIDS 3.0-Detecting Genetic and Drug Class Variant Impact on Conserved Protein Binding Dynamics.

Authors:  Gregory A Babbitt; Ernest P Fokoue; Joshua R Evans; Kyle I Diller; Lily E Adams
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 4.033

4.  Fragment-centric topographic mapping method guides the understanding of ABCG2-inhibitor interactions.

Authors:  Yao Wu; Xin-Ying Gao; Xin-Hui Chen; Shao-Long Zhang; Wen-Juan Wang; Xie-Huang Sheng; De-Zhan Chen
Journal:  RSC Adv       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 4.036

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.