Literature DB >> 35880533

In silico binding affinity prediction for metabotropic glutamate receptors using both endpoint free energy methods and a machine learning-based scoring function.

Jingchen Zhai1, Xibing He1, Yuchen Sun1, Zhuoya Wan2, Beihong Ji1, Shuhan Liu1, Song Li2, Junmei Wang1.   

Abstract

Metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) play an important role in regulating glutamate signal pathways, which are involved in neuropathy and periphery homeostasis. mGluR4, which belongs to Group III mGluRs, is most widely distributed in the periphery among all the mGluRs. It has been proved that the regulation of this receptor is involved in diabetes, colorectal carcinoma and many other diseases. However, the application of structure-based drug design to identify small molecules to regulate the mGluR4 receptor is limited due to the absence of a resolved mGluR4 protein structure. In this work, we first built a homology model of mGluR4 based on a crystal structure of mGluR8, and then conducted hierarchical virtual screening (HVS) to identify possible active ligands for mGluR4. The HVS protocol consists of three hierarchical filters including Glide docking, molecular dynamic (MD) simulation and binding free energy calculation. We successfully prioritized active ligands of mGluR4 from a set of screening compounds using HVS. The predicted active ligands based on binding affinities can almost cover all the experiment-determined active ligands, with only one ligand missed. The correlation between the measured and predicted binding affinities is significantly improved for the MM-PB/GBSA-WSAS methods compared to the Glide docking method. More importantly, we have identified hotspots for ligand binding, and we found that SER157 and GLY158 tend to contribute to the selectivity of mGluR4 ligands, while ALA154 and ALA155 could account for the ligand selectivity to mGluR8. We also recognized other 5 key residues that are critical for ligand potency. The difference of the binding profiles between mGluR4 and mGluR8 can guide us to develop more potent and selective modulators. Moreover, we evaluated the performance of IPSF, a novel type of scoring function trained by a machine learning algorithm on residue-ligand interaction profiles, in guiding drug lead optimization. The cross-validation root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) are much smaller than those by the endpoint methods, and the correlation coefficients are comparable to the best endpoint methods for both mGluRs. Thus, machine learning-based IPSF can be applied to guide lead optimization, albeit the total number of actives/inactives are not big, a typical scenario in drug discovery projects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35880533      PMCID: PMC9460939          DOI: 10.1039/d2cp01727j

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Chem Chem Phys        ISSN: 1463-9076            Impact factor:   3.945


  41 in total

Review 1.  Physiological roles and therapeutic potential of metabotropic glutamate receptors.

Authors:  P Jeffrey Conn
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.691

Review 2.  GPCR drug discovery through the exploitation of allosteric drug binding sites.

Authors:  Stephen Rees; Dwight Morrow; Terry Kenakin
Journal:  Recept Channels       Date:  2002

3.  Automatic atom type and bond type perception in molecular mechanical calculations.

Authors:  Junmei Wang; Wei Wang; Peter A Kollman; David A Case
Journal:  J Mol Graph Model       Date:  2006-02-03       Impact factor: 2.518

4.  Discovery of VU2957 (Valiglurax): An mGlu4 Positive Allosteric Modulator Evaluated as a Preclinical Candidate for the Treatment of Parkinson's Disease.

Authors:  Joseph D Panarese; Darren W Engers; Yong-Jin Wu; Joanne J Bronson; John E Macor; Aspen Chun; Alice L Rodriguez; Andrew S Felts; Julie L Engers; Matthew T Loch; Kyle A Emmitte; Arlindo L Castelhano; Michael J Kates; Michael A Nader; Carrie K Jones; Anna L Blobaum; P Jeffrey Conn; Colleen M Niswender; Corey R Hopkins; Craig W Lindsley
Journal:  ACS Med Chem Lett       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 4.345

5.  Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power.

Authors:  Zhe Wang; Huiyong Sun; Xiaojun Yao; Dan Li; Lei Xu; Youyong Li; Sheng Tian; Tingjun Hou
Journal:  Phys Chem Chem Phys       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 3.676

Review 6.  Metabotropic glutamate receptors in cancer.

Authors:  Lumeng J Yu; Brian A Wall; Janet Wangari-Talbot; Suzie Chen
Journal:  Neuropharmacology       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 5.250

7.  Assessing the performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 1. The accuracy of binding free energy calculations based on molecular dynamics simulations.

Authors:  Tingjun Hou; Junmei Wang; Youyong Li; Wei Wang
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2010-11-30       Impact factor: 4.956

8.  ff14SB: Improving the Accuracy of Protein Side Chain and Backbone Parameters from ff99SB.

Authors:  James A Maier; Carmenza Martinez; Koushik Kasavajhala; Lauren Wickstrom; Kevin E Hauser; Carlos Simmerling
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 6.006

9.  Development and Evaluation of MM/GBSA Based on a Variable Dielectric GB Model for Predicting Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities.

Authors:  Ercheng Wang; Hui Liu; Junmei Wang; Gaoqi Weng; Huiyong Sun; Zhe Wang; Yu Kang; Tingjun Hou
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2020-03-20       Impact factor: 4.956

10.  Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 8. Predicting binding free energies and poses of protein-RNA complexes.

Authors:  Fu Chen; Huiyong Sun; Junmei Wang; Feng Zhu; Hui Liu; Zhe Wang; Tailong Lei; Youyong Li; Tingjun Hou
Journal:  RNA       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 4.942

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.