Optimizing fragment and scaffold docking by use of molecular interaction fingerprints

Protein-ligand interaction fingerprints have been used to postprocess docking poses of three ligand data sets: a set of 40 low-molecular-weight compounds from the Protein Data Bank, a collection of 40 scaffolds from pharmaceutically relevant protein ligands, and a database of 19 scaffolds extracted from true cdk2 inhibitors seeded in 2230 scaffold decoys. Four popular docking tools (FlexX, Glide, Gold, and Surflex) were used to generate poses for ligands of the three data sets. In all cases, scoring by the similarity of interaction fingerprints to a given reference was statistically superior to conventional scoring functions in posing low-molecular-weight fragments, predicting protein-bound scaffold coordinates according to the known binding mode of related ligands, and screening a scaffold library to enrich a hit list in true cdk2-targeted scaffolds.     

Molecular docking of intercalators and groove-binders to nucleic acids using Autodock and Surflex

The molecular docking tools Autodock and Surflex accurately reproduce the crystallographic structures of a collection of small molecule ligands that have been shown to bind nucleic acids. Docking studies were performed with the intercalators daunorubicin and ellipticine and the minor groove binders distamycin and pentamidine. Autodock and Surflex dock daunorubicin and distamycin to their nucleic acid targets within a resolution of approximately 2 A, which is similar to the limit of the crystal structure resolution. However, for the top ranked poses, Autodock and Surflex both dock ellipticine into the correct site but in a different orientation compared to the crystal structure. This appears not only to be partly related to the symmetry of the target nucleic acid, as ellipticine is able to dock from either side of the intercalation site, but also due to the shape of the ligand and docking accuracy. Surflex docks pentamidine in a symmetrically equivalent orientation relative to the crystal structure, while Autodock was able to dock this molecule in the original orientation. In the case of the Surflex docking of pentamidine, the initial rmsd is misleading, given the symmetrical structure of pentamidine. Importantly, the ranking functions of both of these programs are able to return a top pose within approximately 2 A rmsd for daunorubicin, distamycin, and pentamidine and approximately 3 A rmsd for ellipticine compared to their respective crystal structures. Some docking challenges and potential pitfalls are explored, such as the importance of hydrogen treatment on ligands as well as the scoring functions of Autodock and Surflex. Overall for this set of complexes, Surflex is preferred over Autodock for virtual screening, as although the results are comparable, Surflex has significantly faster performance and ease of use under the optimal software conditions tested. These experiments show that molecular docking techniques can be successfully extended to include nucleic acid targets, a finding which has important implications for virtual screening applications and in the design of new small molecules to target therapeutically relevant morphologies of nucleic acids.     

Evaluation of the performance of four molecular docking programs on a diverse set of protein‐ligand complexes

Many molecular docking programs are available nowadays, and thus it is of great practical value to evaluate and compare their performance. We have conducted an extensive evaluation of four popular commercial molecular docking programs, including Glide, GOLD, LigandFit, and Surflex. Our test set consists of 195 protein‐ligand complexes with high‐resolution crystal structures (resolution ≤2.5 Å) and reliable binding data [dissociation constant (K_d) or inhibition constant (K_i)], which are selected from the PDBbind database with an emphasis on diversity. The top‐ranked solutions produced by these programs are compared to the native ligand binding poses observed in crystal structures. Glide and GOLD demonstrate better accuracy than the other two on the entire test set. Their results are also less sensitive to the starting structures for docking. Comparison of the results produced by these programs at three different computation levels reveal that their accuracy are not always proportional to CPU cost as one may expect. The binding scores of the top‐ranked solutions produced by these programs are in low to moderate correlations with experimentally measured binding data. Further analyses on the outcomes of these programs on three suites of subsets of protein‐ligand complexes indicate that these programs are less capable to handle really flexible ligands and relatively flat binding sites, and they have different preferences to hydrophilic/hydrophobic binding sites. Our evaluation can help other researchers to make reasonable choices among available molecular docking programs. It is also valuable for program developers to improve their methods further. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem, 2010     

Can we trust docking results? Evaluation of seven commonly used programs on PDBbind database

Docking is one of the most commonly used techniques in drug design. It is used for both identifying correct poses of a ligand in the binding site of a protein as well as for the estimation of the strength of protein–ligand interaction. Because millions of compounds must be screened, before a suitable target for biological testing can be identified, all calculations should be done in a reasonable time frame. Thus, all programs currently in use exploit empirically based algorithms, avoiding systematic search of the conformational space. Similarly, the scoring is done using simple equations, which makes it possible to speed up the entire process. Therefore, docking results have to be verified by subsequent in vitro studies. The purpose of our work was to evaluate seven popular docking programs (Surflex, LigandFit, Glide, GOLD, FlexX, eHiTS, and AutoDock) on the extensive dataset composed of 1300 protein–ligands complexes from PDBbind 2007 database, where experimentally measured binding affinity values were also available. We compared independently the ability of proper posing [according to Root mean square deviation (or Root mean square distance) of predicted conformations versus the corresponding native one] and scoring (by calculating the correlation between docking score and ligand binding strength). To our knowledge, it is the first large‐scale docking evaluation that covers both aspects of docking programs, that is, predicting ligand conformation and calculating the strength of its binding. More than 1000 protein–ligand pairs cover a wide range of different protein families and inhibitor classes. Our results clearly showed that the ligand binding conformation could be identified in most cases by using the existing software, yet we still observed the lack of universal scoring function for all types of molecules and protein families. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem, 2011     

Multiple ligand simultaneous docking: Orchestrated dancing of ligands in binding sites of protein

Present docking methodologies simulate only one single ligand at a time during docking process. In reality, the molecular recognition process always involves multiple molecular species. Typical protein–ligand interactions are, for example, substrate and cofactor in catalytic cycle; metal ion coordination together with ligand(s); and ligand binding with water molecules. To simulate the real molecular binding processes, we propose a novel multiple ligand simultaneous docking (MLSD) strategy, which can deal with all the above processes, vastly improving docking sampling and binding free energy scoring. The work also compares two search strategies: Lamarckian genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimization, which have respective advantages depending on the specific systems. The methodology proves robust through systematic testing against several diverse model systems: E. coli purine nucleoside phosphorylase (PNP) complex with two substrates, SHP2NSH2 complex with two peptides and Bcl‐xL complex with ABT‐737 fragments. In all cases, the final correct docking poses and relative binding free energies were obtained. In PNP case, the simulations also capture the binding intermediates and reveal the binding dynamics during the recognition processes, which are consistent with the proposed enzymatic mechanism. In the other two cases, conventional single‐ligand docking fails due to energetic and dynamic coupling among ligands, whereas MLSD results in the correct binding modes. These three cases also represent potential applications in the areas of exploring enzymatic mechanism, interpreting noisy X‐ray crystallographic maps, and aiding fragment‐based drug design, respectively. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem, 2010     

VoteDock: Consensus docking method for prediction of protein–ligand interactions

Molecular recognition plays a fundamental role in all biological processes, and that is why great efforts have been made to understand and predict protein–ligand interactions. Finding a molecule that can potentially bind to a target protein is particularly essential in drug discovery and still remains an expensive and time‐consuming task. In silico, tools are frequently used to screen molecular libraries to identify new lead compounds, and if protein structure is known, various protein–ligand docking programs can be used. The aim of docking procedure is to predict correct poses of ligand in the binding site of the protein as well as to score them according to the strength of interaction in a reasonable time frame. The purpose of our studies was to present the novel consensus approach to predict both protein–ligand complex structure and its corresponding binding affinity. Our method used as the input the results from seven docking programs (Surflex, LigandFit, Glide, GOLD, FlexX, eHiTS, and AutoDock) that are widely used for docking of ligands. We evaluated it on the extensive benchmark dataset of 1300 protein–ligands pairs from refined PDBbind database for which the structural and affinity data was available. We compared independently its ability of proper scoring and posing to the previously proposed methods. In most cases, our method is able to dock properly approximately 20% of pairs more than docking methods on average, and over 10% of pairs more than the best single program. The RMSD value of the predicted complex conformation versus its native one is reduced by a factor of 0.5 Å. Finally, we were able to increase the Pearson correlation of the predicted binding affinity in comparison with the experimental value up to 0.5. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem 32: 568–581, 2011     

Docking pose selection by interaction pattern graph similarity: application to the D3R grand challenge 2015

High affinity ligands for a given target tend to share key molecular interactions with important anchoring amino acids and therefore often present quite conserved interaction patterns. This simple concept was formalized in a topological knowledge-based scoring function (GRIM) for selecting the most appropriate docking poses from previously X-rayed interaction patterns. GRIM first converts protein–ligand atomic coordinates (docking poses) into a simple 3D graph describing the corresponding interaction pattern. In a second step, proposed graphs are compared to that found from template structures in the Protein Data Bank. Last, all docking poses are rescored according to an empirical score (GRIMscore) accounting for overlap of maximum common subgraphs. Taking the opportunity of the public D3R Grand Challenge 2015, GRIM was used to rescore docking poses for 36 ligands (6 HSP90α inhibitors, 30 MAP4K4 inhibitors) prior to the release of the corresponding protein–ligand X-ray structures. When applied to the HSP90α dataset, for which many protein–ligand X-ray structures are already available, GRIM provided very high quality solutions (mean rmsd = 1.06 Å, n = 6) as top-ranked poses, and significantly outperformed a state-of-the-art scoring function. In the case of MAP4K4 inhibitors, for which preexisting 3D knowledge is scarce and chemical diversity is much larger, the accuracy of GRIM poses decays (mean rmsd = 3.18 Å, n = 30) although GRIM still outperforms an energy-based scoring function. GRIM rescoring appears to be quite robust with comparison to the other approaches competing for the same challenge (42 submissions for the HSP90 dataset, 27 for the MAP4K4 dataset) as it ranked 3rd and 2nd respectively, for the two investigated datasets. The rescoring method is quite simple to implement, independent on a docking engine, and applicable to any target for which at least one holo X-ray structure is available.     

Message passing interface and multithreading hybrid for parallel molecular docking of large databases on petascale high performance computing machines

A mixed parallel scheme that combines message passing interface (MPI) and multithreading was implemented in the AutoDock Vina molecular docking program. The resulting program, named VinaLC, was tested on the petascale high performance computing (HPC) machines at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. To exploit the typical cluster‐type supercomputers, thousands of docking calculations were dispatched by the master process to run simultaneously on thousands of slave processes, where each docking calculation takes one slave process on one node, and within the node each docking calculation runs via multithreading on multiple CPU cores and shared memory. Input and output of the program and the data handling within the program were carefully designed to deal with large databases and ultimately achieve HPC on a large number of CPU cores. Parallel performance analysis of the VinaLC program shows that the code scales up to more than 15K CPUs with a very low overhead cost of 3.94%. One million flexible compound docking calculations took only 1.4 h to finish on about 15K CPUs. The docking accuracy of VinaLC has been validated against the DUD data set by the re‐docking of X‐ray ligands and an enrichment study, 64.4% of the top scoring poses have RMSD values under 2.0 Å. The program has been demonstrated to have good enrichment performance on 70% of the targets in the DUD data set. An analysis of the enrichment factors calculated at various percentages of the screening database indicates VinaLC has very good early recovery of actives. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Fast docking using the CHARMM force field with EADock DSS

The prediction of binding modes (BMs) occurring between a small molecule and a target protein of biological interest has become of great importance for drug development. The overwhelming diversity of needs leaves room for docking approaches addressing specific problems. Nowadays, the universe of docking software ranges from fast and user friendly programs to algorithmically flexible and accurate approaches. EADock2 is an example of the latter. Its multiobjective scoring function was designed around the CHARMM22 force field and the FACTS solvation model. However, the major drawback of such a software design lies in its computational cost. EADock dihedral space sampling (DSS) is built on the most efficient features of EADock2, namely its hybrid sampling engine and multiobjective scoring function. Its performance is equivalent to that of EADock2 for drug‐like ligands, while the CPU time required has been reduced by several orders of magnitude. This huge improvement was achieved through a combination of several innovative features including an automatic bias of the sampling toward putative binding sites, and a very efficient tree‐based DSS algorithm. When the top‐scoring prediction is considered, 57% of BMs of a test set of 251 complexes were reproduced within 2 Å RMSD to the crystal structure. Up to 70% were reproduced when considering the five top scoring predictions. The success rate is lower in cross‐docking assays but remains comparable with that of the latest version of AutoDock that accounts for the protein flexibility. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem, 2011     

Maximum common binding modes (MCBM): consensus docking scoring using multiple ligand information and interaction fingerprints

Improving the scoring functions for small molecule-protein docking is a highly challenging task in current computational drug design. Here we present a novel consensus scoring concept for the prediction of binding modes for multiple known active ligands. Similar ligands are generally believed to bind to their receptor in a similar fashion. The presumption of our approach was that the true binding modes of similar ligands should be more similar to each other compared to false positive binding modes. The number of conserved (consensus) interactions between similar ligands was used as a docking score. Patterns of interactions were modeled using ligand receptor interaction fingerprints. Our approach was evaluated for four different data sets of known cocrystal structures (CDK-2, dihydrofolate reductase, HIV-1 protease, and thrombin). Docking poses were generated with FlexX and rescored by our approach. For comparison the CScore scoring functions from Sybyl were used, and consensus scores were calculated thereof. Our approach performed better than individual scoring functions and was comparable to consensus scoring. Analysis of the distribution of docking poses by self-organizing maps (SOM) and interaction fingerprints confirmed that clusters of docking poses composed of multiple ligands were preferentially observed near the native binding mode. Being conceptually unrelated to commonly used docking scoring functions our approach provides a powerful method to complement and improve computational docking experiments.     

BALLDock/SLICK: a new method for protein-carbohydrate docking

Protein-ligand docking is an essential technique in computer-aided drug design. While generally available docking programs work well for most drug classes, carbohydrates and carbohydrate-like compounds are often problematic for docking. We present a new docking method specifically designed to handle docking of carbohydrate-like compounds. BALLDock/SLICK combines an evolutionary docking algorithm for flexible ligands and flexible receptor side chains with carbohydrate-specific scoring and energy functions. The scoring function has been designed to identify accurate ligand poses, while the energy function yields accurate estimates of the binding free energies of these poses. On a test set of known protein-sugar complexes we demonstrate the ability of the approach to generate correct poses for almost all of the structures and achieve very low mean errors for the predicted binding free energies.     

GalaxyDock BP2 score: a hybrid scoring function for accurate protein–ligand docking

Protein–ligand docking is a useful tool for providing atomic-level understanding of protein functions in nature and design principles for artificial ligands or proteins with desired properties. The ability to identify the true binding pose of a ligand to a target protein among numerous possible candidate poses is an essential requirement for successful protein–ligand docking. Many previously developed docking scoring functions were trained to reproduce experimental binding affinities and were also used for scoring binding poses. However, in this study, we developed a new docking scoring function, called GalaxyDock BP2 Score, by directly training the scoring power of binding poses. This function is a hybrid of physics-based, empirical, and knowledge-based score terms that are balanced to strengthen the advantages of each component. The performance of the new scoring function exhibits significant improvement over existing scoring functions in decoy pose discrimination tests. In addition, when the score is used with the GalaxyDock2 protein–ligand docking program, it outperformed other state-of-the-art docking programs in docking tests on the Astex diverse set, the Cross2009 benchmark set, and the Astex non-native set. GalaxyDock BP2 Score and GalaxyDock2 with this score are freely available at http://galaxy.seoklab.org/softwares/galaxydock.html.     

A pose prediction approach based on ligand 3D shape similarity

Molecular docking predicts the best pose of a ligand in the target protein binding site by sampling and scoring numerous conformations and orientations of the ligand. Failures in pose prediction are often due to either insufficient sampling or scoring function errors. To improve the accuracy of pose prediction by tackling the sampling problem, we have developed a method of pose prediction using shape similarity. It first places a ligand conformation of the highest 3D shape similarity with known crystal structure ligands into protein binding site and then refines the pose by repacking the side-chains and performing energy minimization with a Monte Carlo algorithm. We have assessed our method utilizing CSARdock 2012 and 2014 benchmark exercise datasets consisting of co-crystal structures from eight proteins. Our results revealed that ligand 3D shape similarity could substitute conformational and orientational sampling if at least one suitable co-crystal structure is available. Our method identified poses within 2 Å RMSD as the top-ranking pose for 85.7 % of the test cases. The median RMSD for our pose prediction method was found to be 0.81 Å and was better than methods performing extensive conformational and orientational sampling within target protein binding sites. Furthermore, our method was better than similar methods utilizing ligand 3D shape similarity for pose prediction.     

LigDockCSA: protein-ligand docking using conformational space annealing

Protein–ligand docking techniques are one of the essential tools for structure‐based drug design. Two major components of a successful docking program are an efficient search method and an accurate scoring function. In this work, a new docking method called LigDockCSA is developed by using a powerful global optimization technique, conformational space annealing (CSA), and a scoring function that combines the AutoDock energy and the piecewise linear potential (PLP) torsion energy. It is shown that the CSA search method can find lower energy binding poses than the Lamarckian genetic algorithm of AutoDock. However, lower‐energy solutions CSA produced with the AutoDock energy were often less native‐like. The loophole in the AutoDock energy was fixed by adding a torsional energy term, and the CSA search on the refined energy function is shown to improve the docking performance. The performance of LigDockCSA was tested on the Astex diverse set which consists of 85 protein–ligand complexes. LigDockCSA finds the best scoring poses within 2 Å root‐mean‐square deviation (RMSD) from the native structures for 84.7% of the test cases, compared to 81.7% for AutoDock and 80.5% for GOLD. The results improve further to 89.4% by incorporating the conformational entropy. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem, 2011     

Evaluation of docking/scoring approaches: A comparative study based on MMP3 inhibitors

An increasing number of docking/scoring programs are available that use different sampling and scoring algorithms. A reliable scoring function is the crucial element of such approaches. Comparative studies are needed to evaluate their current capabilities. DOCK4 with force field and PMF scoring as well as FlexX were used to evaluate the predictive power of these docking/scoring approaches to identify the correct binding mode of 61 MMP-3 inhibitors in a crystal structure of stromelysin and also to rank them according to their different binding affinities. It was found that DOCK4/PMF scoring performs significantly better than FlexX and DOCK4/FF in both ranking ligands and predicting their binding modes. Most notably, DOCK4/PMF was the only scoring/docking approach that found a significant correlation between binding affinity and predicted score of the docked inhibitors. However, comparing only those cases where the correct binding mode was identified (scoring highest among sampled poses), FlexX showed the best `fine tuning' (lowest rmsd) in predicted binding modes. The results suggest that not so much the sampling procedure but rather the scoring function is the crucial element of a docking program.     

Comparison of two implementations of the incremental construction algorithm in flexible docking of thrombin inhibitors

A set of 32 known thrombin inhibitors representing different chemical classes has been used to evaluate the performance of two implementations of incremental construction algorithms for flexible molecular docking: DOCK 4.0 and FlexX 1.5. Both docking tools are able to dock 10–35% of our test set within 2 Å of their known, bound conformations using default sampling and scoring parameters. Although flexible docking with DOCK or FlexX is not able to reconstruct all native complexes, it does offer a significant improvement over rigid body docking of single, rule-based conformations, which is still often used for docking of large databases. Docking of sets of multiple conformers of each inhibitor, obtained with a novel protocol for diverse conformer generation and selection, yielded results comparable to those obtained by flexible docking. Chemical scoring, which is an empirically modified force field scoring method implemented in DOCK 4.0, outperforms both interaction energy scoring by DOCK and the Böhm scoring function used by FlexX in rigid and flexible docking of thrombin inhibitors. Our results indicate that for reliable docking of flexible ligands the selection of anchor fragments, conformational sampling and currently available scoring methods still require improvement.     

Power transformations improve interpolation of grids for molecular mechanics interaction energies

A common strategy for speeding up molecular docking calculations is to precompute nonbonded interaction energies between a receptor molecule and a set of three‐dimensional grids. The grids are then interpolated to compute energies for ligand atoms in many different binding poses. Here, I evaluate a smoothing strategy of taking a power transformation of grid point energies and inverse transformation of the result from trilinear interpolation. For molecular docking poses from 85 protein‐ligand complexes, this smoothing procedure leads to significant accuracy improvements, including an approximately twofold reduction in the root mean square error at a grid spacing of 0.4 Å and retaining the ability to rank docking poses even at a grid spacing of 0.7 Å. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Validation studies of the site-directed docking program LibDock

The performance of the site-features docking algorithm LibDock has been evaluated across eight GlaxoSmithKline targets as a follow-up to a broad validation study of docking and scoring software (Warren, G. L.; Andrews, W. C.; Capelli, A.; Clarke, B.; Lalonde, J.; Lambert, M. H.; Lindvall, M.; Nevins, N.; Semus, S. F.; Senger, S.; Tedesco, G.; Walls, I. D.; Woolven, J. M.; Peishoff, C. E.; Head, M. S. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 5912-5931). Docking experiments were performed to assess both the accuracy in reproducing the binding mode of the ligand and the retrieval of active compounds in a virtual screening protocol using both the DJD (Diller, D. J.; Merz, K. M., Jr. Proteins 2001, 43, 113-124) and LigScore2 (Krammer, A. K.; Kirchoff, P. D.; Jiang, X.; Venkatachalam, C. M.; Waldman, M. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2005, 23, 395-407) scoring functions. This study was conducted using DJD scoring, and poses were rescored using all available scoring functions in the Accelrys LigandFit module, including LigScore2. For six out of eight targets at least 30% of the ligands were docked within a root-mean-square difference (RMSD) of 2.0 A for the crystallographic poses when the LigScore2 scoring function was used. LibDock retrieved at least 20% of active compounds in the top 10% of screened ligands for four of the eight targets in the virtual screening protocol. In both studies the LigScore2 scoring function enhanced the retrieval of crystallographic poses or active compounds in comparison with the results obtained using the DJD scoring function. The results for LibDock accuracy and ligand retrieval in virtual screening are compared to 10 other docking and scoring programs. These studies demonstrate the utility of the LigScore2 scoring function and that LibDock as a feature directed docking method performs as well as docking programs that use genetic/growing and Monte Carlo driven algorithms.     

Machine learning optimization of cross docking accuracy

Performance of small molecule automated docking programs has conceptually been divided into docking -, scoring -, ranking - and screening power, which focuses on the crystal pose prediction, affinity prediction, ligand ranking and database screening capabilities of the docking program, respectively. Benchmarks show that different docking programs can excel in individual benchmarks which suggests that the scoring function employed by the programs can be optimized for a particular task. Here the scoring function of Smina is re-optimized towards enhancing the docking power using a supervised machine learning approach and a manually curated database of ligands and cross docking receptor pairs. The optimization method does not need associated binding data for the receptor-ligand examples used in the data set and works with small train sets. The re-optimization of the weights for the scoring function results in a similar docking performance with regard to docking power towards a cross docking test set. A ligand decoy based benchmark indicates a better discrimination between poses with high and low RMSD. The reported parameters for Smina are compatible with Autodock Vina and represent ready-to-use alternative parameters for researchers who aim at pose prediction rather than affinity prediction.