Literature DB >> 29890081

Comparative Evaluation of Covalent Docking Tools.

Andrea Scarpino1, György G Ferenczy1, György M Keserű1.   

Abstract

Increased interest in covalent drug discovery led to the development of computer programs predicting binding mode and affinity of covalent inhibitors. Here we compare the performance of six covalent docking tools, AutoDock4, CovDock, FITTED, GOLD, ICM-Pro, and MOE, for reproducing experimental binding modes in an unprecedently large and diverse set of covalent complexes. It was found that 40-60% of the top scoring ligand poses are within 2.0 Å RMSD from the experimental binding mode. This rate showed program dependent increase and achieved 50-90% when the best RMSD among the top ten scoring poses was considered. This performance is comparable to that of noncovalent docking tools and therefore suggests that anchoring the ligand does not necessarily improve the accuracy of the prediction. The effect of various ligand and protein features on the docking performance was investigated. At the level of warhead chemistry, higher success rate was found for Michael additions, nucleophilic additions and nucleophilic substitutions than for ring opening reactions and disulfide formation. Increasing ligand size and flexibility generally affects pose predictions unfavorably, although AutoDock4, FITTED, and ICM-Pro were found to be less sensitive up to 35 heavy atoms. Increasing the accessibility of the target cysteine tends to result in improved binding mode predictions. Docking programs show protein dependent performance suggesting a target-dependent choice of the optimal docking tool. It was found that noncovalent docking into Cys/Ala mutated proteins by ICM-Pro and Glide reproduced experimental binding modes with only slightly lower performance and at a significantly lower computational expense than covalent docking did. Overall, our results highlight the key factors influencing the docking performance of the investigated tools and they give guidelines for selecting the optimal combination of warheads, ligands, and tools for the system investigated. Results also identify the most important aspects to be considered for developing improved protocols for docking and virtual screening of covalent ligands.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29890081     DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00228

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


  22 in total

1.  Binding Mode Prediction and Virtual Screening Applications by Covalent Docking.

Authors:  Andrea Scarpino; György G Ferenczy; György M Keserű
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

2.  Ranking Reversible Covalent Drugs: From Free Energy Perturbation to Fragment Docking.

Authors:  Han Zhang; Wenjuan Jiang; Payal Chatterjee; Yun Luo
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 4.956

3.  Computational structural enzymology methodologies for the study and engineering of fatty acid synthases, polyketide synthases and nonribosomal peptide synthetases.

Authors:  Andrew J Schaub; Gabriel O Moreno; Shiji Zhao; Hau V Truong; Ray Luo; Shiou-Chuan Tsai
Journal:  Methods Enzymol       Date:  2019-04-22       Impact factor: 1.600

4.  Unravelling the covalent binding of zampanolide and taccalonolide AJ to a minimalist representation of a human microtubule.

Authors:  Pedro A Sánchez-Murcia; Alberto Mills; Álvaro Cortés-Cabrera; Federico Gago
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 5.  Selective and Effective: Current Progress in Computational Structure-Based Drug Discovery of Targeted Covalent Inhibitors.

Authors:  Giulia Bianco; David S Goodsell; Stefano Forli
Journal:  Trends Pharmacol Sci       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 14.819

6.  Discovery of Lysine-Targeted eIF4E Inhibitors through Covalent Docking.

Authors:  Xiaobo Wan; Tangpo Yang; Adolfo Cuesta; Xiaming Pang; Trent E Balius; John J Irwin; Brian K Shoichet; Jack Taunton
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2020-03-04       Impact factor: 15.419

7.  Further exploration of the structure-activity relationship of dual soluble epoxide hydrolase/fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibitors.

Authors:  Stephanie Wilt; Sean Kodani; Leah Valencia; Paula K Hudson; Stephanie Sanchez; Taylor Quintana; Christophe Morisseau; Bruce D Hammock; Ram Kandasamy; Stevan Pecic
Journal:  Bioorg Med Chem       Date:  2021-11-11       Impact factor: 3.641

8.  Covalent docking in CDOCKER.

Authors:  Yujin Wu; Charles L Brooks Iii
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2022-08-19       Impact factor: 4.179

9.  Neuropathy target esterase (NTE/PNPLA6) and organophosphorus compound-induced delayed neurotoxicity (OPIDN).

Authors:  Rudy J Richardson; John K Fink; Paul Glynn; Robert B Hufnagel; Galina F Makhaeva; Sanjeeva J Wijeyesakere
Journal:  Adv Neurotoxicol       Date:  2020-03-03

10.  An automatic pipeline for the design of irreversible derivatives identifies a potent SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitor.

Authors:  Daniel Zaidman; Paul Gehrtz; Mihajlo Filep; Daren Fearon; Ronen Gabizon; Alice Douangamath; Jaime Prilusky; Shirly Duberstein; Galit Cohen; C David Owen; Efrat Resnick; Claire Strain-Damerell; Petra Lukacik; Haim Barr; Martin A Walsh; Frank von Delft; Nir London
Journal:  Cell Chem Biol       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 8.116

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.