Ligand solvation in molecular docking

Solvation plays an important role in ligand‐protein association and has a strong impact on comparisons of binding energies for dissimilar molecules. When databases of such molecules are screened for complementarity to receptors of known structure, as often occurs in structure‐based inhibitor discovery, failure to consider ligand solvation often leads to putative ligands that are too highly charged or too large. To correct for the different charge states and sizes of the ligands, we calculated electrostatic and non‐polar solvation free energies for molecules in a widely used molecular database, the Available Chemicals Directory (ACD). A modified Born equation treatment was used to calculate the electrostatic component of ligand solvation. The non‐polar component of ligand solvation was calculated based on the surface area of the ligand and parameters derived from the hydration energies of apolar ligands. These solvation energies were subtracted from the ligand‐receptor interaction energies. We tested the usefulness of these corrections by screening the ACD for molecules that complemented three proteins of known structure, using a molecular docking program. Correcting for ligand solvation improved the rankings of known ligands and discriminated against molecules with inappropriate charge states and sizes. Proteins 1999;34:4–16. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Effective handling of induced-fit motion in flexible docking

For structure-based drug design, where various ligand structures need to be docked to a target protein structure, a docking method that can handle conformational flexibility of not only the ligand, but also the protein, is indispensable. We have developed a simple and effective approach for dealing with the local induced-fit motion of the target protein, and implemented it in our docking tool, ADAM. Our approach efficiently combines the following two strategies: a vdW-offset grid in which the protein cavity is enlarged uniformly, and structure optimization allowing the motion of ligand and protein atoms. To examine the effectiveness of our approach, we performed docking validation studies, including redocking in 18 test cases and foreign-docking, in which various ligands from foreign crystal structures of complexes are docked into a target protein structure, in 22 cases (on five target proteins). With the original ADAM, the correct docking modes (RMSD < 2.0 A) were not present among the top 20 models in one case of redocking and four cases of foreign-docking. When the handling of induced-fit motion was implemented, the correct solutions were acquired in all 40 test cases. In foreign-docking on thymidine kinase, the correct docking modes were obtained as the top-ranked solutions for all 10 test ligands by our combinatorial approach, and this appears to be the best result ever reported with any docking tool. The results of docking validation have thus confirmed the effectiveness of our approach, which can provide reliable docking models even in the case of foreign-docking, where conformational change of the target protein cannot be ignored. We expect that this approach will contribute substantially to actual drug design, including virtual screening.     

Evaluation of AlphaFold2 structures as docking targets

AlphaFold2 is a promising new tool for researchers to predict protein structures and generate high-quality models, with low backbone and global root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) when compared with experimental structures. However, it is unclear if the structures predicted by AlphaFold2 will be valuable targets of docking. To address this question, we redocked ligands in the PDBbind datasets against the experimental co-crystallized receptor structures and against the AlphaFold2 structures using AutoDock-GPU. We find that the quality measure provided during structure prediction is not a good predictor of docking performance, despite accurately reflecting the quality of the alpha carbon alignment with experimental structures. Removing low-confidence regions of the predicted structure and making side chains flexible improves the docking outcomes. Overall, despite high-quality prediction of backbone conformation, fine structural details limit the naive application of AlphaFold2 models as docking targets.     

Blind docking of pharmaceutically relevant compounds using RosettaLigand

It is difficult to properly validate algorithms that dock a small molecule ligand into its protein receptor using data from the public domain: the predictions are not blind because the correct binding mode is already known, and public test cases may not be representative of compounds of interest such as drug leads. Here, we use private data from a real drug discovery program to carry out a blind evaluation of the RosettaLigand docking methodology and find that its performance is on average comparable with that of the best commercially available current small molecule docking programs. The strength of RosettaLigand is the use of the Rosetta sampling methodology to simultaneously optimize protein sidechain, protein backbone and ligand degrees of freedom; the extensive benchmark test described here identifies shortcomings in other aspects of the protocol and suggests clear routes to improving the method.     

GEMDOCK: a generic evolutionary method for molecular docking

We have developed an evolutionary approach for flexible ligand docking. This approval, GEMDOCK, uses a Generic Evolutionary Method for molecular DOCKing and an empirical scoring function. The former combines both discrete and continuous global search strategies with local search strategies to speed up convergence, whereas the latter results in rapid recognition of potential ligands. GEMDOCK was tested on a diverse data set of 100 protein-ligand complexes from the Protein Data Bank. In 79% of these complexes, the docked lowest energy ligand structures had root-mean-square derivations (RMSDs) below 2.0 A with respect to the corresponding crystal structures. The success rate increased to 85% if the structure water molecules were retained. We evaluated GEMDOCK on two cross-docking experiments in which each ligand of a protein ensemble was docked into each protein of the ensemble. Seventy-six percent of the docked structures had RMSDs below 2.0 A when the ligands were docked into foreign structures. We analyzed and validated GEMDOCK with respect to various search spaces and scoring functions, and found that if the scoring function was perfect, then the predicted accuracy was also essentially perfect. This study suggests that GEMDOCK is a useful tool for molecular recognition and may be used to systematically evaluate and thus improve scoring functions.     

Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: considering protein structural variations in molecular docking

One approach to incorporate protein flexibility in molecular docking is the use of an ensemble consisting of multiple protein structures. Sequentially docking each ligand into a large number of protein structures is computationally too expensive to allow large-scale database screening. It is challenging to achieve a good balance between docking accuracy and computational efficiency. In this work, we have developed a fast, novel docking algorithm utilizing multiple protein structures, referred to as ensemble docking, to account for protein structural variations. The algorithm can simultaneously dock a ligand into an ensemble of protein structures and automatically select an optimal protein structure that best fits the ligand by optimizing both ligand coordinates and the conformational variable m, where m represents the m-th structure in the protein ensemble. The docking algorithm was validated on 10 protein ensembles containing 105 crystal structures and 87 ligands in terms of binding mode and energy score predictions. A success rate of 93% was obtained with the criterion of root-mean-square deviation <2.5 A if the top five orientations for each ligand were considered, comparable to that of sequential docking in which scores for individual docking are merged into one list by re-ranking, and significantly better than that of single rigid-receptor docking (75% on average). Similar trends were also observed in binding score predictions and enrichment tests of virtual database screening. The ensemble docking algorithm is computationally efficient, with a computational time comparable to that for docking a ligand into a single protein structure. In contrast, the computational time for the sequential docking method increases linearly with the number of protein structures in the ensemble. The algorithm was further evaluated using a more realistic ensemble in which the corresponding bound protein structures of inhibitors were excluded. The results show that ensemble docking successfully predicts the binding modes of the inhibitors, and discriminates the inhibitors from a set of noninhibitors with similar chemical properties. Although multiple experimental structures were used in the present work, our algorithm can be easily applied to multiple protein conformations generated by computational methods, and helps improve the efficiency of other existing multiple protein structure(MPS)-based methods to accommodate protein flexibility.     

Modeling of metal interaction geometries for protein-ligand docking

The accurate modeling of metal coordination geometries plays an important role for structure-based drug design applied to metalloenzymes. For the development of a new metal interaction model, we perform a statistical analysis of metal interaction geometries that are relevant to protein-ligand complexes. A total of 43,061 metal sites of the Protein Data Bank (PDB), containing amongst others magnesium, calcium, zinc, iron, manganese, copper, cadmium, cobalt, and nickel, were evaluated according to their metal coordination geometry. Based on statistical analysis, we derived a model for the automatic calculation and definition of metal interaction geometries for the purpose of molecular docking analyses. It includes the identification of the metal-coordinating ligands, the calculation of the coordination geometry and the superposition of ideal polyhedra to identify the optimal positions for free coordination sites. The new interaction model was integrated in the docking software FlexX and evaluated on a data set of 103 metalloprotein-ligand complexes, which were extracted from the PDB. In a first step, the quality of the automatic calculation of the metal coordination geometry was analyzed. In 74% of the cases, the correct prediction of the coordination geometry could be determined on the basis of the protein structure alone. Secondly, the new metal interaction model was tested in terms of predicting protein-ligand complexes. In the majority of test cases, the new interaction model resulted in an improved docking accuracy of the top ranking placements.     

Complex-type-dependent scoring functions in protein-protein docking

A major challenge in the field of protein-protein docking is to discriminate between the many wrong and few near-native conformations, i.e. scoring. Here, we introduce combinatorial complex-type-dependent scoring functions for different types of protein-protein complexes, protease/inhibitor, antibody/antigen, enzyme/inhibitor and others. The scoring functions incorporate both physical and knowledge-based potentials, i.e. atomic contact energy (ACE), the residue pair potential (RP), electrostatic and van der Waals' interactions. For different type complexes, the weights of the scoring functions were optimized by the multiple linear regression method, in which only top 300 structures with ligand root mean square deviation (L_RMSD) less than 20 A from the bound (co-crystallized) docking of 57 complexes were used to construct a training set. We employed the bound docking studies to examine the quality of the scoring function, and also extend to the unbound (separately crystallized) docking studies and extra 8 protein-protein complexes. In bound docking of the 57 cases, the first hits of protease/inhibitor cases are all ranked in the top 5. For the cases of antibody/antigen, enzyme/inhibitor and others, there are 17/19, 5/6 and 13/15 cases with the first hits ranked in the top 10, respectively. In unbound docking studies, the first hits of 9/17 protease/inhibitor, 6/19 antibody/antigen, 1/6 enzyme/inhibitor and 6/15 others' complexes are ranked in the top 10. Additionally, for the extra 8 cases, the first hits of the two protease/inhibitor cases are ranked in the top for the bound and unbound test. For the two enzyme/inhibitor cases, the first hits are ranked 1st for bound test, and the 119th and 17th for the unbound test. For the others, the ranks of the first hits are the 1st for the bound test and the 12th for the 1WQ1 unbound test. To some extent, the results validated our divide-and-conquer strategy in the docking study, which might hopefully shed light on the prediction of protein-protein interactions.     

Molecular docking based virtual screening of compounds for inhibiting sortase A in L.monocytogenes

Listeriosis is considered as an important public health issue. Sortase A (srtA) is an enzyme with catalytic role in L. monocytogenes that breaks the junction between threonine and glycine in the LPXTG motif (a key motif in internalin A (InlA) that plays an important role in listeriosis). Inactivation of srtA was shown to inhibit anchoring of the invasion protein InIA. This is in addition to inhibiting peptidoglycan-associated LPXTG proteins. Therefore, it is of interest to inhibit strA using potential molecules. Here, we describe the design of an inhibitor with high binding affinity to srtA with the ability to prevent the attachment of srtA to the LPXTG proteins such as InIJ. A homology model of Listeria monocytogenes Sortase A was developed using MODELLER (version 9.12). We screened StrA to 100,000 drug-like ligands from the Zinc database using Molecular docking and virtual screening tool PyRX). Pharmacokinetic analysis using the FAFDrugs³ web server along with ADME and toxicity analysis based on Lipinski rule of five were adopted for the screening exercise followed by oral toxicity check using PROTOX (a server) for every 10 successive hits. The results from PROTOX server indicated that Lig #1 (with LD50 of 2000mg/kg) and Lig #7 (with LD50 of 2000mg/kg) have toxicity class 4 and Lig #3 (with LD50 of 14430mg/kg) has toxicity class 6. Subsequent modifications of these structures followed by FAFDrugs³ analysis for high bioavailability value selected Lig #7 according to Lipinski rules of five. Thus, Lig #7 with IUPAC name ((R)-4-{(S)-1-[(S)-2-Amino-4-methylvaleryl]-2-pyrrolidinyl}-1-[(S)-1-(ethylamino) carbonyl-propylamino] -2-propyl-1, 4- butanedione) is suggested as a potential candidate for srtA inhibition for further consideration.     

Combination of scoring functions improves discrimination in protein-protein docking

Two structure-based potentials are used for both filtering (i.e., selecting a subset of conformations generated by rigid-body docking), and rescoring and ranking the selected conformations. ACP (atomic contact potential) is an atom-level extension of the Miyazawa-Jernigan potential parameterized on protein structures, whereas RPScore (residue pair potential score) is a residue-level potential, based on interactions in protein-protein complexes. These potentials are combined with other energy terms and applied to 13 sets of protein decoys, as well as to the results of docking 10 pairs of unbound proteins. For both potentials, the ability to discriminate between near-native and non-native docked structures is substantially improved by refining the structures and by adding a van der Waals energy term. It is observed that ACP and RPScore complement each other in a number of ways (e.g., although RPScore yields more hits than ACP, mainly as a result of its better performance for charged complexes, ACP usually ranks the near-native complexes better). As a general solution to the protein-docking problem, we have found that the best discrimination strategies combine either an RPScore filter with an ACP-based scoring function, or an ACP-based filter with an RPScore-based scoring function. Thus, ACP and RPScore capture complementary structural information, and combining them in a multistage postprocessing protocol provides substantially better discrimination than the use of the same potential for both filtering and ranking the docked conformations.     

Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases

The main complicating factor in structure-based drug design is receptor rearrangement upon ligand binding (induced fit). It is the induced fit that complicates cross-docking of ligands from different ligand-receptor complexes. Previous studies have shown the necessity to include protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening. Very few docking methods have been developed to predict the induced fit reliably and, at the same time, to improve on discriminating between binders and non-binders in the virtual screening process.We present an algorithm called the ICM-flexible receptor docking algorithm (IFREDA) to account for protein flexibility in virtual screening. By docking flexible ligands to a flexible receptor, IFREDA generates a discrete set of receptor conformations, which are then used to perform flexible ligand-rigid receptor docking and scoring. This is followed by a merging and shrinking step, where the results of the multiple virtual screenings are condensed to improve the enrichment factor. In the IFREDA approach, both side-chain rearrangements and essential backbone movements are taken into consideration, thus sampling adequately the conformational space of the receptor, even in cases of large loop movements.As a preliminary step, to show the importance of incorporating protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening, and to validate the merging and shrinking procedure, we compiled an extensive small-scale virtual screening benchmark of 33 crystal structures of four different protein kinases sub-families (cAPK, CDK-2, P38 and LCK), where we obtained an enrichment factor fold-increase of 1.85±0.65 using two or three multiple experimental conformations. IFREDA was used in eight protein kinase complexes and was able to find the correct ligand conformation and discriminate the correct conformations from the “misdocked” conformations solely on the basis of energy calculation. Five of the generated structures were used in the small-scale virtual screening stage and, by merging and shrinking the results with those of the original structure, we show an enrichment factor fold increase of 1.89±0.60, comparable to that obtained using multiple experimental conformations.Our cross-docking tests on the protein kinase benchmark underscore the necessity of incorporating protein flexibility in both ligand docking and virtual screening. The methodology presented here will be extremely useful in cases where few or no experimental structures of complexes are available, while some binders are known.     

Flexible ligand docking using conformational ensembles.

Molecular docking algorithms suggest possible structures for molecular complexes. They are used to model biological function and to discover potential ligands. A present challenge for docking algorithms is the treatment of molecular flexibility. Here, the rigid body program, DOCK, is modified to allow it to rapidly fit multiple conformations of ligands. Conformations of a given molecule are pre-calculated in the same frame of reference, so that each conformer shares a common rigid fragment with all other conformations. The ligand conformers are then docked together, as an ensemble, into a receptor binding site. This takes advantage of the redundancy present in differing conformers of the same molecule. The algorithm was tested using three organic ligand protein systems and two protein-protein systems. Both the bound and unbound conformations of the receptors were used. The ligand ensemble method found conformations that resembled those determined in X-ray crystal structures (RMS values typically less than 1.5 A). To test the method's usefulness for inhibitor discovery, multi-compound and multi-conformer databases were screened for compounds known to bind to dihydrofolate reductase and compounds known to bind to thymidylate synthase. In both cases, known inhibitors and substrates were identified in conformations resembling those observed experimentally. The ligand ensemble method was 100-fold faster than docking a single conformation at a time and was able to screen a database of over 34 million conformations from 117,000 molecules in one to four CPU days on a workstation.     

Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing

The Metropolis technique of conformation searching is combined with rapid energy evaluation using molecular affinity potentials to give an efficient procedure for docking substrates to macromolecules of known structure. The procedure works well on a number of crystallographic test systems, functionally reproducing the observed binding modes of several substrates.     

PIPER: an FFT-based protein docking program with pairwise potentials

The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) correlation approach to protein-protein docking can evaluate the energies of billions of docked conformations on a grid if the energy is described in the form of a correlation function. Here, this restriction is removed, and the approach is efficiently used with pairwise interaction potentials that substantially improve the docking results. The basic idea is approximating the interaction matrix by its eigenvectors corresponding to the few dominant eigenvalues, resulting in an energy expression written as the sum of a few correlation functions, and solving the problem by repeated FFT calculations. In addition to describing how the method is implemented, we present a novel class of structure-based pairwise intermolecular potentials. The DARS (Decoys As the Reference State) potentials are extracted from structures of protein-protein complexes and use large sets of docked conformations as decoys to derive atom pair distributions in the reference state. The current version of the DARS potential works well for enzyme-inhibitor complexes. With the new FFT-based program, DARS provides much better docking results than the earlier approaches, in many cases generating 50% more near-native docked conformations. Although the potential is far from optimal for antibody-antigen pairs, the results are still slightly better than those given by an earlier FFT method. The docking program PIPER is freely available for noncommercial applications.     

PREDICT modeling and in-silico screening for G-protein coupled receptors

G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) are a major group of drug targets for which only one x-ray structure is known (the nondrugable rhodopsin), limiting the application of structure-based drug discovery to GPCRs. In this paper we present the details of PREDICT, a new algorithmic approach for modeling the 3D structure of GPCRs without relying on homology to rhodopsin. PREDICT, which focuses on the transmembrane domain of GPCRs, starts from the primary sequence of the receptor, simultaneously optimizing multiple 'decoy' conformations of the protein in order to find its most stable structure, culminating in a virtual receptor-ligand complex. In this paper we present a comprehensive analysis of three PREDICT models for the dopamine D2, neurokinin NK1, and neuropeptide Y Y1 receptors. A shorter discussion of the CCR3 receptor model is also included. All models were found to be in good agreement with a large body of experimental data. The quality of the PREDICT models, at least for drug discovery purposes, was evaluated by their successful utilization in in-silico screening. Virtual screening using all three PREDICT models yielded enrichment factors 9-fold to 44-fold better than random screening. Namely, the PREDICT models can be used to identify active small-molecule ligands embedded in large compound libraries with an efficiency comparable to that obtained using crystal structures for non-GPCR targets.     

Molecular dynamics simulation of the docking of substrates to proteins

A simple method is described to perform docking of subtrates to proteins or probes to receptor molecules by a modification of molecular dynamics simulations. The method consists of a separation of the center-of-mass motion of the substrate from its internal and rotational motions, and a separate coupling to different thermal baths for both types of motion of the substrate and for the motion of the receptor. Thus the temperatures and the time constants of coupling to the baths can be arbitrarily varied for these three types of motion, allowing either a frozen or a flexible receptor and allowing control of search rate without disturbance of internal structure. In addition, an extra repulsive term between substrate and protein was applied to smooth the interaction. The method was applied to a model substrate docking onto a model surface, and to the docking of phosphocholine onto immunoglobulin McPC603, in both cases with a frozen receptor. Using transrational temperatures of the substrate in the range of 1300–1700 K and room temperature for the internal degrees of freedom of the substrate, an efficient nontrapping exploratory search (“helicopter view”) is obtained, which visits the correct binding sites. Low energy conformations can then be further investigated by separate search or by dynamic simulated annealing. In both cases the correct minima were identified. The possibility to work with flexible receptors is discussed. © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

PSI-DOCK: towards highly efficient and accurate flexible ligand docking

We have developed a new docking method, Pose-Sensitive Inclined (PSI)-DOCK, for flexible ligand docking. An improved SCORE function has been developed and used in PSI-DOCK for binding free energy evaluation. The improved SCORE function was able to reproduce the absolute binding free energies of a training set of 200 protein-ligand complexes with a correlation coefficient of 0.788 and a standard error of 8.13 kJ/mol. For ligand binding pose exploration, a unique searching strategy was designed in PSI-DOCK. In the first step, a tabu-enhanced genetic algorithm with a rapid shape-complementary scoring function is used to roughly explore and store potential binding poses of the ligand. Then, these predicted binding poses are optimized and compete against each other by using a genetic algorithm with the accurate SCORE function to determine the binding pose with the lowest docking energy. The PSI-DOCK 1.0 program is highly efficient in identifying the experimental binding pose. For a test dataset of 194 complexes, PSI-DOCK 1.0 achieved a 67% success rate (RMSD < 2.0 A) for only one run and a 74% success rate for 10 runs. PSI-DOCK can also predict the docking binding free energy with high accuracy. For a test set of 64 complexes, the correlation between the experimentally observed binding free energies and the docking binding free energies for 64 complexes is r = 0.777 with a standard deviation of 7.96 kJ/mol. Moreover, compared with other docking methods, PSI-DOCK 1.0 is extremely easy to use and requires minimum docking preparations. There is no requirement for the users to add hydrogen atoms to proteins because all protein hydrogen atoms and the flexibility of the terminal protein atoms are intrinsically taken into account in PSI-DOCK. There is also no requirement for the users to calculate partial atomic charges because PSI-DOCK does not calculate an electrostatic energy term. These features are not only convenient for the users but also help to avoid the influence of different preparation methods.     

Integrating atom-based and residue-based scoring functions for protein-protein docking

Most scoring functions for protein-protein docking algorithms are either atom-based or residue-based, with the former being able to produce higher quality structures and latter more tolerant to conformational changes upon binding. Earlier, we developed the ZRANK algorithm for reranking docking predictions, with a scoring function that contained only atom-based terms. Here we combine ZRANK's atom-based potentials with five residue-based potentials published by other labs, as well as an atom-based potential IFACE that we published after ZRANK. We simultaneously optimized the weights for selected combinations of terms in the scoring function, using decoys generated with the protein-protein docking algorithm ZDOCK. We performed rigorous cross validation of the combinations using 96 test cases from a docking benchmark. Judged by the integrative success rate of making 1000 predictions per complex, addition of IFACE and the best residue-based pair potential reduced the number of cases without a correct prediction by 38 and 27% relative to ZDOCK and ZRANK, respectively. Thus combination of residue-based and atom-based potentials into a scoring function can improve performance for protein-protein docking. The resulting scoring function is called IRAD (integration of residue- and atom-based potentials for docking) and is available at http://zlab.umassmed.edu.