Literature DB >> 29127581

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

Matthew P Baumgartner1, David A Evans2.   

Abstract

Two of the major ongoing challenges in computational drug discovery are predicting the binding pose and affinity of a compound to a protein. The Drug Design Data Resource Grand Challenge 2 was developed to address these problems and to drive development of new methods. The challenge provided the 2D structures of compounds for which the organizers help blinded data in the form of 35 X-ray crystal structures and 102 binding affinity measurements and challenged participants to predict the binding pose and affinity of the compounds. We tested a number of pose prediction methods as part of the challenge; we found that docking methods that incorporate protein flexibility (Induced Fit Docking) outperformed methods that treated the protein as rigid. We also found that using binding pose metadynamics, a molecular dynamics based method, to score docked poses provided the best predictions of our methods with an average RMSD of 2.01 Å. We tested both structure-based (e.g. docking) and ligand-based methods (e.g. QSAR) in the affinity prediction portion of the competition. We found that our structure-based methods based on docking with Smina (Spearman ρ = 0.614), performed slightly better than our ligand-based methods (ρ = 0.543), and had equivalent performance with the other top methods in the competition. Despite the overall good performance of our methods in comparison to other participants in the challenge, there exists significant room for improvement especially in cases such as these where protein flexibility plays such a large role.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Affinity prediction; D3R; Drug design data resource; Induced fit docking; Metadynamics; Pose prediction

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29127581     DOI: 10.1007/s10822-017-0081-y

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


  66 in total

1.  A hierarchical approach to all-atom protein loop prediction.

Authors:  Matthew P Jacobson; David L Pincus; Chaya S Rapp; Tyler J F Day; Barry Honig; David E Shaw; Richard A Friesner
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2004-05-01

2.  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

3.  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

Review 4.  Molecule-pharmacophore superpositioning and pattern matching in computational drug design.

Authors:  Gerhard Wolber; Thomas Seidel; Fabian Bendix; Thierry Langer
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2007-11-05       Impact factor: 7.851

Review 5.  Investigating drug-target association and dissociation mechanisms using metadynamics-based algorithms.

Authors:  Andrea Cavalli; Andrea Spitaleri; Giorgio Saladino; Francesco L Gervasio
Journal:  Acc Chem Res       Date:  2014-12-12       Impact factor: 22.384

6.  Knowledge-Based Strategy to Improve Ligand Pose Prediction Accuracy for Lead Optimization.

Authors:  Cen Gao; Nels Thorsteinson; Ian Watson; Jibo Wang; Michal Vieth
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 4.956

7.  Flexible ligand docking using a genetic algorithm.

Authors:  C M Oshiro; I D Kuntz; J S Dixon
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  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

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.  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
  6 in total

1.  Creating a Virtual Assistant for Medicinal Chemistry.

Authors:  Lewis R Vidler; Matthew P Baumgartner
Journal:  ACS Med Chem Lett       Date:  2019-06-07       Impact factor: 4.345

Review 2.  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

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

Review 4.  Empirical Scoring Functions for Structure-Based Virtual Screening: Applications, Critical Aspects, and Challenges.

Authors:  Isabella A Guedes; Felipe S S Pereira; Laurent E Dardenne
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 5.810

5.  Exploring Ligand Stability in Protein Crystal Structures Using Binding Pose Metadynamics.

Authors:  Lucia Fusani; David S Palmer; Don O Somers; Ian D Wall
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2020-01-22       Impact factor: 4.956

6.  Assessing multiple score functions in Rosetta for drug discovery.

Authors:  Shannon T Smith; Jens Meiler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.