Literature DB >> 31257873

Influence of the Structural Accuracy of Homology Models on Their Applicability to Docking-Based Virtual Screening: The β2 Adrenergic Receptor as a Case Study.

Stefano Costanzi, Austin Cohen, Abigail Danfora, Marjan Dolatmoradi.   

Abstract

How accurate do structures of the β2 adrenergic receptor (β2AR) need to be to effectively serve as platforms for docking-based virtual screening campaigns? To answer this research question, here, we targeted through controlled virtual screening experiments 23 homology models of the β2AR endowed with different levels of structural accuracy. Subsequently, we studied the correlation between virtual screening performance and structural accuracy of the targeted models. Moreover, we studied the correlation between virtual screening performance and template/target receptor sequence identity. Our study demonstrates that docking-based virtual screening campaigns targeting homology models of the β2AR, in the majority of the cases, yielded results that exceeded random expectations in terms of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC). Moreover, with the most effective scoring method, over one-third and one-quarter of the models yielded results that exceeded random expectation also in terms of enrichment factors (EF1, EF5, and EF10) and BEDROC (α = 160.9), respectively. Not surprisingly, we found a detectable linear correlation between virtual screening performance and structural accuracy of the ligand-binding cavity. We also found a detectable linear correlation between virtual screening performance and structural accuracy of the second extracellular loop (EL2). Finally, our data indicate that, although there is no detectable linear correlation between virtual screening performance and template/β2AR sequence identity, models built on the basis of templates that show high sequence identity with the β2AR, especially within the ligand-biding cavity, performed consistently well. Conversely, models with lower sequence identity displayed performance levels that ranged from very good to random, with no apparent correlation with the sequence identity itself.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31257873      PMCID: PMC6800073          DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00380

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


  53 in total

Review 1.  Seven-transmembrane receptors.

Authors:  Kristen L Pierce; Richard T Premont; Robert J Lefkowitz
Journal:  Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 94.444

2.  Analysis and comparison of 2D fingerprints: insights into database screening performance using eight fingerprint methods.

Authors:  Jianxin Duan; Steven L Dixon; Jeffrey F Lowrie; Woody Sherman
Journal:  J Mol Graph Model       Date:  2010-05-25       Impact factor: 2.518

3.  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

4.  Identifying and characterizing binding sites and assessing druggability.

Authors:  Thomas A Halgren
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 4.956

5.  Protein and ligand preparation: parameters, protocols, and influence on virtual screening enrichments.

Authors:  G Madhavi Sastry; Matvey Adzhigirey; Tyler Day; Ramakrishna Annabhimoju; Woody Sherman
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 6.  Recent advances in the determination of G protein-coupled receptor structures.

Authors:  David M Thal; Ziva Vuckovic; Christopher J Draper-Joyce; Yi-Lynn Liang; Alisa Glukhova; Arthur Christopoulos; Patrick M Sexton
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 6.809

7.  Expanding the horizons of G protein-coupled receptor structure-based ligand discovery and optimization using homology models.

Authors:  Claudio N Cavasotto; Damián Palomba
Journal:  Chem Commun (Camb)       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 6.222

Review 8.  Community-wide assessment of GPCR structure modelling and ligand docking: GPCR Dock 2008.

Authors:  Mayako Michino; Enrique Abola; Charles L Brooks; J Scott Dixon; John Moult; Raymond C Stevens
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 84.694

9.  Ligand discovery from a dopamine D3 receptor homology model and crystal structure.

Authors:  Jens Carlsson; Ryan G Coleman; Vincent Setola; John J Irwin; Hao Fan; Avner Schlessinger; Andrej Sali; Bryan L Roth; Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  Nat Chem Biol       Date:  2011-09-18       Impact factor: 15.040

10.  ZINC: a free tool to discover chemistry for biology.

Authors:  John J Irwin; Teague Sterling; Michael M Mysinger; Erin S Bolstad; Ryan G Coleman
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 4.956

View more
  2 in total

1.  Performance of virtual screening against GPCR homology models: Impact of template selection and treatment of binding site plasticity.

Authors:  Mariama Jaiteh; Ismael Rodríguez-Espigares; Jana Selent; Jens Carlsson
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 4.475

2.  Insect RDL Receptor Models for Virtual Screening: Impact of the Template Conformational State in Pentameric Ligand-Gated Ion Channels.

Authors:  Iván Felsztyna; Marcos A Villarreal; Daniel A García; Virginia Miguel
Journal:  ACS Omega       Date:  2022-01-05
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.