Literature DB >> 29119352

Using physics-based pose predictions and free energy perturbation calculations to predict binding poses and relative binding affinities for FXR ligands in the D3R Grand Challenge 2.

Christina Athanasiou1, Sofia Vasilakaki1, Dimitris Dellis2, Zoe Cournia3.   

Abstract

Computer-aided drug design has become an integral part of drug discovery and development in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, and is nowadays extensively used in the lead identification and lead optimization phases. The drug design data resource (D3R) organizes challenges against blinded experimental data to prospectively test computational methodologies as an opportunity for improved methods and algorithms to emerge. We participated in Grand Challenge 2 to predict the crystallographic poses of 36 Farnesoid X Receptor (FXR)-bound ligands and the relative binding affinities for two designated subsets of 18 and 15 FXR-bound ligands. Here, we present our methodology for pose and affinity predictions and its evaluation after the release of the experimental data. For predicting the crystallographic poses, we used docking and physics-based pose prediction methods guided by the binding poses of native ligands. For FXR ligands with known chemotypes in the PDB, we accurately predicted their binding modes, while for those with unknown chemotypes the predictions were more challenging. Our group ranked #1st (based on the median RMSD) out of 46 groups, which submitted complete entries for the binding pose prediction challenge. For the relative binding affinity prediction challenge, we performed free energy perturbation (FEP) calculations coupled with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. FEP/MD calculations displayed a high success rate in identifying compounds with better or worse binding affinity than the reference (parent) compound. Our studies suggest that when ligands with chemical precedent are available in the literature, binding pose predictions using docking and physics-based methods are reliable; however, predictions are challenging for ligands with completely unknown chemotypes. We also show that FEP/MD calculations hold predictive value and can nowadays be used in a high throughput mode in a lead optimization project provided that crystal structures of sufficiently high quality are available.

Entities:  

Keywords:  D3R; Docking; Drug design data resource; FEP+; FXR; Farnesoid X receptor; Free energy perturbation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29119352     DOI: 10.1007/s10822-017-0075-9

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


  51 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.  Computation of methodology-independent ionic solvation free energies from molecular simulations. II. The hydration free energy of the sodium cation.

Authors:  Mika A Kastenholz; Philippe H Hünenberger
Journal:  J Chem Phys       Date:  2006-06-14       Impact factor: 3.488

3.  PHASE: a new engine for pharmacophore perception, 3D QSAR model development, and 3D database screening: 1. Methodology and preliminary results.

Authors:  Steven L Dixon; Alexander M Smondyrev; Eric H Knoll; Shashidhar N Rao; David E Shaw; Richard A Friesner
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2006-11-24       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes.

Authors:  Richard A Friesner; Robert B Murphy; Matthew P Repasky; Leah L Frye; Jeremy R Greenwood; Thomas A Halgren; Paul C Sanschagrin; Daniel T Mainz
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2006-10-19       Impact factor: 7.446

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.  Role of the active-site solvent in the thermodynamics of factor Xa ligand binding.

Authors:  Robert Abel; Tom Young; Ramy Farid; Bruce J Berne; Richard A Friesner
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2008-02-12       Impact factor: 15.419

7.  Single mutation induced H3N2 hemagglutinin antibody neutralization: a free energy perturbation study.

Authors:  Ruhong Zhou; Payel Das; Ajay K Royyuru
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 2.991

8.  Prediction of Protein-Ligand Binding Poses via a Combination of Induced Fit Docking and Metadynamics Simulations.

Authors:  Anthony J Clark; Pratyush Tiwary; Ken Borrelli; Shulu Feng; Edward B Miller; Robert Abel; Richard A Friesner; B J Berne
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2016-05-13       Impact factor: 6.006

9.  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

10.  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

View more
  6 in total

1.  Free-energy landscape of molecular interactions between endothelin 1 and human endothelin type B receptor: fly-casting mechanism.

Authors:  Junichi Higo; Kota Kasahara; Mitsuhito Wada; Bhaskar Dasgupta; Narutoshi Kamiya; Tomonori Hayami; Ikuo Fukuda; Yoshifumi Fukunishi; Haruki Nakamura
Journal:  Protein Eng Des Sel       Date:  2019-12-31       Impact factor: 1.650

Review 2.  Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Drug-Target Binding by Molecular Simulation.

Authors:  Sergio Decherchi; Andrea Cavalli
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2020-10-02       Impact factor: 60.622

3.  D3R grand challenge 4: blind prediction of protein-ligand poses, affinity rankings, and relative binding free energies.

Authors:  Conor D Parks; Zied Gaieb; Michael Chiu; Huanwang Yang; Chenghua Shao; W Patrick Walters; Johanna M Jansen; Georgia McGaughey; Richard A Lewis; Scott D Bembenek; Michael K Ameriks; Tara Mirzadegan; Stephen K Burley; Rommie E Amaro; Michael K Gilson
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2020-01-23       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  Molecular Mechanism for Attractant Signaling to DHMA by E. coli Tsr.

Authors:  Asuka A Orr; Jingyun Yang; Nitesh Sule; Ravi Chawla; Kenneth G Hull; Mingzhao Zhu; Daniel Romo; Pushkar P Lele; Arul Jayaraman; Michael D Manson; Phanourios Tamamis
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 4.033

5.  Effect of set up protocols on the accuracy of alchemical free energy calculation over a set of ACK1 inhibitors.

Authors:  José M Granadino-Roldán; Antonia S J S Mey; Juan J Pérez González; Stefano Bosisio; Jaime Rubio-Martinez; Julien Michel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-12       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Ligand and Structure-Based Virtual Screening in Combination, to Evaluate Small Organic Molecules as Inhibitors for the XIAP Anti-Apoptotic Protein: The Xanthohumol Hypothesis.

Authors:  Angeliki Mavra; Christos C Petrou; Manos C Vlasiou
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 4.927

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.