Improved pose and affinity predictions using different protocols tailored on the basis of data availability

The D3R 2015 grand drug design challenge provided a set of blinded challenges for evaluating the applicability of our protocols for pose and affinity prediction. In the present study, we report the application of two different strategies for the two D3R protein targets HSP90 and MAP4K4. HSP90 is a well-studied target system with numerous co-crystal structures and SAR data. Furthermore the D3R HSP90 test compounds showed high structural similarity to existing HSP90 inhibitors in BindingDB. Thus, we adopted an integrated docking and scoring approach involving a combination of both pharmacophoric and heavy atom similarity alignments, local minimization and quantitative structure activity relationships modeling, resulting in the reasonable prediction of pose [with the root mean square deviation (RMSD) values of 1.75 Å for mean pose 1, 1.417 Å for the mean best pose and 1.85 Å for the mean all poses] and affinity (ROC AUC = 0.702 at 7.5 pIC50 cut-off and R = 0.45 for 180 compounds). The second protein, MAP4K4, represents a novel system with limited SAR and co-crystal structure data and little structural similarity of the D3R MAP4K4 test compounds to known MAP4K4 ligands. For this system, we implemented an exhaustive pose and affinity prediction protocol involving docking and scoring using the PLANTS software which considers side chain flexibility together with protein–ligand fingerprints analysis assisting in pose prioritization. This protocol through fares poorly in pose prediction (with the RMSD values of 4.346 Å for mean pose 1, 4.69 Å for mean best pose and 4.75 Å for mean all poses) and produced reasonable affinity prediction (AUC = 0.728 at 7.5 pIC50 cut-off and R = 0.67 for 18 compounds, ranked 1st among 80 submissions).     

Ranking docking poses by graph matching of protein–ligand interactions: lessons learned from the D3R Grand Challenge 2

A novel docking challenge has been set by the Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) in order to predict the pose and affinity ranking of a set of Farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonists, prior to the public release of their bound X-ray structures and potencies. In a first phase, 36 agonists were docked to 26 Protein Data Bank (PDB) structures of the FXR receptor, and next rescored using the in-house developed GRIM method. GRIM aligns protein–ligand interaction patterns of docked poses to those of available PDB templates for the target protein, and rescore poses by a graph matching method. In agreement with results obtained during the previous 2015 docking challenge, we clearly show that GRIM rescoring improves the overall quality of top-ranked poses by prioritizing interaction patterns already visited in the PDB. Importantly, this challenge enables us to refine the applicability domain of the method by better defining the conditions of its success. We notably show that rescoring apolar ligands in hydrophobic pockets leads to frequent GRIM failures. In the second phase, 102 FXR agonists were ranked by decreasing affinity according to the Gibbs free energy of the corresponding GRIM-selected poses, computed by the HYDE scoring function. Interestingly, this fast and simple rescoring scheme provided the third most accurate ranking method among 57 contributions. Although the obtained ranking is still unsuitable for hit to lead optimization, the GRIM–HYDE scoring scheme is accurate and fast enough to post-process virtual screening data.     

Investigation of MM-PBSA rescoring of docking poses

Target-based virtual screening is increasingly used to generate leads for targets for which high quality three-dimensional (3D) structures are available. To allow large molecular databases to be screened rapidly, a tiered scoring scheme is often employed whereby a simple scoring function is used as a fast filter of the entire database and a more rigorous and time-consuming scoring function is used to rescore the top hits to produce the final list of ranked compounds. Molecular mechanics Poisson-Boltzmann surface area (MM-PBSA) approaches are currently thought to be quite effective at incorporating implicit solvation into the estimation of ligand binding free energies. In this paper, the ability of a high-throughput MM-PBSA rescoring function to discriminate between correct and incorrect docking poses is investigated in detail. Various initial scoring functions are used to generate docked poses for a subset of the CCDC/Astex test set and to dock one set of actives/inactives from the DUD data set. The effectiveness of each of these initial scoring functions is discussed. Overall, the ability of the MM-PBSA rescoring function to (i) regenerate the set of X-ray complexes when docking the bound conformation of the ligand, (ii) regenerate the X-ray complexes when docking conformationally expanded databases for each ligand which include "conformation decoys" of the ligand, and (iii) enrich known actives in a virtual screen for the mineralocorticoid receptor in the presence of "ligand decoys" is assessed. While a pharmacophore-based molecular docking approach, PhDock, is used to carry out the docking, the results are expected to be general to use with any docking method.     

Improving binding mode and binding affinity predictions of docking by ligand-based search of protein conformations: evaluation in D3R grand challenge 2015

The growing number of protein–ligand complex structures, particularly the structures of proteins co-bound with different ligands, in the Protein Data Bank helps us tackle two major challenges in molecular docking studies: the protein flexibility and the scoring function. Here, we introduced a systematic strategy by using the information embedded in the known protein–ligand complex structures to improve both binding mode and binding affinity predictions. Specifically, a ligand similarity calculation method was employed to search a receptor structure with a bound ligand sharing high similarity with the query ligand for the docking use. The strategy was applied to the two datasets (HSP90 and MAP4K4) in recent D3R Grand Challenge 2015. In addition, for the HSP90 dataset, a system-specific scoring function (ITScore2_hsp90) was generated by recalibrating our statistical potential-based scoring function (ITScore2) using the known protein–ligand complex structures and the statistical mechanics-based iterative method. For the HSP90 dataset, better performances were achieved for both binding mode and binding affinity predictions comparing with the original ITScore2 and with ensemble docking. For the MAP4K4 dataset, although there were only eight known protein–ligand complex structures, our docking strategy achieved a comparable performance with ensemble docking. Our method for receptor conformational selection and iterative method for the development of system-specific statistical potential-based scoring functions can be easily applied to other protein targets that have a number of protein–ligand complex structures available to improve predictions on binding.     

Molecular docking performance evaluated on the D3R Grand Challenge 2015 drug-like ligand datasets

The D3R Grand Challenge 2015 was focused on two protein targets: Heat Shock Protein 90 (HSP90) and Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Kinase Kinase Kinase 4 (MAP4K4). We used a protocol involving a preliminary analysis of the available data in PDB and PubChem BioAssay, and then a docking/scoring step using more computationally demanding parameters that were required to provide more reliable predictions. We could evidence that different docking software and scoring functions can behave differently on individual ligand datasets, and that the flexibility of specific binding site residues is a crucial element to provide good predictions.     

Optimal strategies for virtual screening of induced-fit and flexible target in the 2015 D3R Grand Challenge

Induced fit or protein flexibility can make a given structure less useful for docking and/or scoring. The 2015 Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) Grand Challenge provided a unique opportunity to prospectively test optimal strategies for virtual screening in these type of targets: heat shock protein 90 (HSP90), a protein with multiple ligand-induced binding modes; and mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase kinase kinase 4 (MAP4K4), a kinase with a large flexible pocket. Using previously known co-crystal structures, we tested predictions from methods that keep the receptor structure fixed and used (a) multiple receptor/ligand co-crystals as binding templates for minimization or docking (“close”), (b) methods that align or dock to a single receptor (“cross”), and (c) a hybrid approach that chose from multiple bound ligands as initial templates for minimization to a single receptor (“min-cross”). Pose prediction using our “close” models resulted in average ligand RMSDs of 0.32 and 1.6 Å for HSP90 and MAP4K4, respectively, the most accurate models of the community-wide challenge. On the other hand, affinity ranking using our “cross” methods performed well overall despite the fact that a fixed receptor cannot model ligand-induced structural changes,. In addition, “close” methods that leverage the co-crystals of the different binding modes of HSP90 also predicted the best affinity ranking. Our studies suggest that analysis of changes on the receptor structure upon ligand binding can help select an optimal virtual screening strategy.     

D3R grand challenge 2015: Evaluation of protein–ligand pose and affinity predictions

The Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) ran Grand Challenge 2015 between September 2015 and February 2016. Two targets served as the framework to test community docking and scoring methods: (1) HSP90, donated by AbbVie and the Community Structure Activity Resource (CSAR), and (2) MAP4K4, donated by Genentech. The challenges for both target datasets were conducted in two stages, with the first stage testing pose predictions and the capacity to rank compounds by affinity with minimal structural data; and the second stage testing methods for ranking compounds with knowledge of at least a subset of the ligand–protein poses. An additional sub-challenge provided small groups of chemically similar HSP90 compounds amenable to alchemical calculations of relative binding free energy. Unlike previous blinded Challenges, we did not provide cognate receptors or receptors prepared with hydrogens and likewise did not require a specified crystal structure to be used for pose or affinity prediction in Stage 1. Given the freedom to select from over 200 crystal structures of HSP90 in the PDB, participants employed workflows that tested not only core docking and scoring technologies, but also methods for addressing water-mediated ligand–protein interactions, binding pocket flexibility, and the optimal selection of protein structures for use in docking calculations. Nearly 40 participating groups submitted over 350 prediction sets for Grand Challenge 2015. This overview describes the datasets and the organization of the challenge components, summarizes the results across all submitted predictions, and considers broad conclusions that may be drawn from this collaborative community endeavor.     

Interaction with specific HSP90 residues as a scoring function: validation in the D3R Grand Challenge 2015

Here is reported the development of a novel scoring function that performs remarkably well at identifying the native binding pose of a subset of HSP90 inhibitors containing aminopyrimidine or resorcinol based scaffolds. This scoring function is called PocketScore, and consists of the interaction energy between a ligand and three residues in the binding pocket: Asp93, Thr184 and a water molecule. We integrated PocketScore into a molecular docking workflow, and used it to participate in the Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) Grand Challenge 2015 (GC2015). PocketScore was able to rank 180 molecules of the GC2015 according to their binding affinity with satisfactory performance. These results indicate that the specific residues considered by PocketScore are determinant to properly model the interaction between HSP90 and its subset of inhibitors containing aminopyrimidine or resorcinol based scaffolds. Moreover, the development of PocketScore aimed at improving docking power while neglecting the prediction of binding affinities, suggesting that accurate identification of native binding poses is a determinant factor for the performance of virtual screens.     

Rescoring of docking poses under Occam’s Razor: are there simpler solutions?

Ligand affinity prediction from docking simulations is usually performed by means of highly empirical and diverse protocols. These protocols often involve the re-scoring of poses generated by a force field (FF) based Hamiltonian to provide either estimated binding affinities—or alternatively, some empirical goodness score. Re-scoring is performed by so-called scoring functions—typically, a reweighted sum of FF terms augmented by additional terms (e.g., desolvation/entropic penalty, hydrophobicity, aromatic interactions etc.). Sometimes, the scoring function actually drives ligand positioning, but often it only operates on the best scoring poses ranked top by the initial ligand positioning tool. In either of these rather intricate scenarios, scoring functions are docking-specific models, and most require machine-learning-based calibration. Therefore, docking simulations are less straightforward when compared to “standard” molecular simulations in which the FF Hamiltonian defines the energy, and affinity emerges as an ensemble average property over pools of representative conformers (i.e., the trajectory). Paraphrasing on Occam’s Razor principle, additional model complexity is only acceptable if demonstrated to bring a significant improvement of prediction quality. In this work we therefore examined whether the complexity inherent to scoring functions is indeed justified. For this purpose we compared sampler for multiple protein–ligand entities, a general purpose conformation sampler based on the AMBER/GAFF FF, complemented with continuum solvation terms, with several state of the art docking tools that rely on calibrated scoring functions (Glide, Gold, Autodock-Vina) in terms of its ability to top-rank the actives from large and diverse ligand series associated with various proteins. There is no clear winner of this study, where each program performed well on most of the targets, but also failed with respect to at least one of them. Therefore, a well-parameterized force field with a simple, energy-based ligand ranking protocol appears to be an as effective docking protocol as intricate rescoring strategies based on scoring functions. A tool that can sample the conformational space of the free ligand, the bound ligand and the protein binding site using the same force field may avoid many of the approximations common to contemporary docking protocols and allow e.g., for docking into highly flexible active sites, when current scoring functions are not well suited to estimate receptor strain energies.     

Pose prediction accuracy in docking studies and enrichment of actives in the active site of GSK-3beta

We present molecular docking studies on the inhibitors of GSK-3beta kinase in the enzyme binding sites of the X-ray complexes (1H8F, 1PYX, 1O9U, 1Q4L, 1Q5K, and 1UV5) using the Schr?dinger docking tool Glide. Cognate and cross-docking studies using standard precision (SP) and extraprecision (XP) algorithms have been carried out. Cognate docking studies demonstrate that docked poses similar to X-ray poses (root-mean-square deviations of less than 2 A) are found within the top four ranks of the GlideScore and E-model scores. However, cross-docking studies typically produce poses that are significantly deviated from X-ray poses in all but a couple of cases, implying potential for induced fit effects in ligand binding. In this light, we have also carried out induced fit docking studies in the active sites of 1O9U, 1Q4L, and 1Q5K. Specifically, conformational changes have been effected in the active sites of these three protein structures to dock noncognate ligands. Thus, for example, the active site of 1O9U has been induced to fit the ligands of 1Q4L, 1Q5K, and 1UV5. These studies produce ligand docked poses which have significantly lower root-mean-square deviations relative to their X-ray crystallographic poses, when compared to the corresponding values from the cross-docking studies. Furthermore, we have used an ensemble of the induced fit models and X-ray structures to enhance the retrieval of active GSK-3beta inhibitors seeded in a decoy database, normally used in Glide validation studies. Thus, our studies provide valuable insights into computational strategies useful for the identification of potential GSK-3beta inhibitors.     

Are predefined decoy sets of ligand poses able to quantify scoring function accuracy?

Due to the large number of different docking programs and scoring functions available, researchers are faced with the problem of selecting the most suitable one when starting a structure-based drug discovery project. To guide the decision process, several studies comparing different docking and scoring approaches have been published. In the context of comparing scoring function performance, it is common practice to use a predefined, computer-generated set of ligand poses (decoys) and to reevaluate their score using the set of scoring functions to be compared. But are predefined decoy sets able to unambiguously evaluate and rank different scoring functions with respect to pose prediction performance? This question arose when the pose prediction performance of our piecewise linear potential derived scoring functions (Korb et al. in J Chem Inf Model 49:84–96, 2009) was assessed on a standard decoy set (Cheng et al. in J Chem Inf Model 49:1079–1093, 2009). While they showed excellent pose identification performance when they were used for rescoring of the predefined decoy conformations, a pronounced degradation in performance could be observed when they were directly applied in docking calculations using the same test set. This implies that on a discrete set of ligand poses only the rescoring performance can be evaluated. For comparing the pose prediction performance in a more rigorous manner, the search space of each scoring function has to be sampled extensively as done in the docking calculations performed here. We were able to identify relative strengths and weaknesses of three scoring functions (ChemPLP, GoldScore, and Astex Statistical Potential) by analyzing the performance for subsets of the complexes grouped by different properties of the active site. However, reasons for the overall poor performance of all three functions on this test set compared to other test sets of similar size could not be identified.     

Large scale free energy calculations for blind predictions of protein–ligand binding: the D3R Grand Challenge 2015

We describe binding free energy calculations in the D3R Grand Challenge 2015 for blind prediction of the binding affinities of 180 ligands to Hsp90. The present D3R challenge was built around experimental datasets involving Heat shock protein (Hsp) 90, an ATP-dependent molecular chaperone which is an important anticancer drug target. The Hsp90 ATP binding site is known to be a challenging target for accurate calculations of ligand binding affinities because of the ligand-dependent conformational changes in the binding site, the presence of ordered waters and the broad chemical diversity of ligands that can bind at this site. Our primary focus here is to distinguish binders from nonbinders. Large scale absolute binding free energy calculations that cover over 3000 protein–ligand complexes were performed using the BEDAM method starting from docked structures generated by Glide docking. Although the ligand dataset in this study resembles an intermediate to late stage lead optimization project while the BEDAM method is mainly developed for early stage virtual screening of hit molecules, the BEDAM binding free energy scoring has resulted in a moderate enrichment of ligand screening against this challenging drug target. Results show that, using a statistical mechanics based free energy method like BEDAM starting from docked poses offers better enrichment than classical docking scoring functions and rescoring methods like Prime MM-GBSA for the Hsp90 data set in this blind challenge. Importantly, among the three methods tested here, only the mean value of the BEDAM binding free energy scores is able to separate the large group of binders from the small group of nonbinders with a gap of 2.4 kcal/mol. None of the three methods that we have tested provided accurate ranking of the affinities of the 147 active compounds. We discuss the possible sources of errors in the binding free energy calculations. The study suggests that BEDAM can be used strategically to discriminate binders from nonbinders in virtual screening and to more accurately predict the ligand binding modes prior to the more computationally expensive FEP calculations of binding affinity.     

Synthesis of novel 3-substituted-5H-benzo[5,6][1, 4]thiazino[3,2-e][1,2,4]triazines and their 15-lipoxygenase inhibitory activity

A new group of 3-substituted-5H-benzo[5,6][1,4]thiazino[3,2-e][1,2,4]triazines was designed, synthesized and evaluated as inhibitors of 15-lipoxygenase (15-LO), and the results were compared with those of standard ligand 4-methyl-2-(4-methylpiperazin-1-yl)pyrimido[4,5-b][1,4]benzothiazine (4-MMPB). Among the newly designed ligands, compound 9e showed the best IC₅₀ of 15-LO inhibition (IC₅₀ = 38 µM). The docking calculations were performed in MOE software based on the function of force-field scoring, in order to study the interaction of these new compounds and standard ligand with 15-LO. The docking study implied that these ligands have hydrogen bond interaction with the residue of active site of 15-LO.     

Docking of small molecules to farnesoid X receptors using AutoDock Vina with the Convex-PL potential: lessons learned from D3R Grand Challenge 2

The 2016 D3R Grand Challenge 2 provided an opportunity to test multiple protein–ligand docking protocols on a set of ligands bound to farnesoid X receptor that has many available experimental structures. We participated in the Stage 1 of the Challenge devoted to the docking pose predictions, with the mean RMSD value of our submission poses of 2.9 Å. Here we present a thorough analysis of our docking predictions made with AutoDock Vina and the Convex-PL rescoring potential by reproducing our submission protocol and running a series of additional molecular docking experiments. We conclude that a correct receptor structure, or more precisely, the structure of the binding pocket, plays the crucial role in the success of our docking studies. We have also noticed the important role of a local ligand geometry, which seems to be not well discussed in literature. We succeed to improve our results up to the mean RMSD value of 2.15–2.33 Å  dependent on the models of the ligands, if docking these to all available homologous receptors. Overall, for docking of ligands of diverse chemical series we suggest to perform docking of each of the ligands to a set of multiple receptors that are homologous to the target.     

MM-GB/SA rescoring of docking poses in structure-based lead optimization

The critical issues in docking include the prediction of the correct binding pose and the accurate estimation of the corresponding binding affinity. Different docking methodologies have all been successful in reproducing the crystallographic binding modes but struggle when predicting the corresponding binding affinities. The aim of this work is to evaluate the performance of the MM-GB/SA rescoring of docking poses in structure-based lead optimization. To accomplish that, a diverse set of pharmaceutically relevant targets, including CDK2, FactorXa, Thrombin, and HIV-RT were selected. The correlation between the MM-GB/SA results and experimental data in all cases is remarkable. It even qualifies this approach as a more attractive alternative for rank-ordering than the Free Energy Perturbation and Thermodynamic Integration methodologies because, while as accurate, it can handle more structurally dissimilar ligands and provides results at a fraction of the computational cost. On the technical side, the benefit of performing a conformational analysis and having an ensemble of conformers to represent each ligand in the unbound state during the MM-GB/SA rescoring procedure was investigated. In addition, the estimation of conformational entropy penalties for the ligands upon binding, computed from the Boltzmann distribution in water, was evaluated and compared to a commonly used approach employed by many docking scoring functions.     

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.     

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.     

Improving VEGFR-2 docking-based screening by pharmacophore postfiltering and similarity search postprocessing

Conventional docking-based virtual screening (VS) of chemical databases is based on the ranking of compounds according to the values retrieved by a scoring function (typically, the binding affinity estimation). However, using the most suitable scoring function for each kind of receptor pocket is not always an effective process to rank compounds, and sometimes neither to distinguish between correct binding modes from incorrect ones. To improve actives from decoys selection, here we propose a three-step VS protocol, which includes the conventional docking step, a pharmacophore postfilter step, and a similarity search postprocess. This VS protocol is retrospectively applied to VEGFR-2 (Kdr-kinase) inhibitors. The resulting docking poses calculated using the Alpha HB scoring function implemented in MOE are postfiltered according to defined pharmacophore interactions (structure based). The selected poses are again ranked according to their molecular similarity (MACCS fingerprint) to the cognate ligand. Results show that both the overall and early VS performance improve the application of this protocol.     

Evaluation of docking performance in a blinded virtual screening of fragment-like trypsin inhibitors

In this study, we have "blindly" assessed the ability of several combinations of docking software and scoring functions to predict the binding of a fragment-like library of bovine trypsine inhibitors. The most suitable protocols (involving Gold software and GoldScore scoring function, with or without rescoring) were selected for this purpose using a training set of compounds with known biological activities. The selected virtual screening protocols provided good results with the SAMPL3-VS dataset, showing enrichment factors of about 10 for Top 20 compounds. This methodology should be useful in difficult cases of docking, with a special emphasis on the fragment-based virtual screening campaigns.     

Prediction of multiple binding modes of the CDK2 inhibitors, anilinopyrazoles, using the automated docking programs GOLD, FlexX, and LigandFit: an evaluation of performance

Anilinopyrazoles as CDK2 inhibitors can adopt multiple binding modes depending on the substituents at the 5-position of the pyrazole ring, based on CDK2/cyclin A crystallographic studies. Three commercially available docking programs, FlexX, GOLD, and LigandFit, were tested with 63 anilinopyrazole analogues in an attempt to reproduce the binding modes observed in the crystal structures. Each docking program gave different ligand conformations depending on the scoring or energy functions used. FlexX/drugscore, GOLD/chemscore, and LigandFit/plp were the best combinations of each docking program in reproducing the ligand conformations observed in the crystal structures. The 63 analogues were divided into two groups, type-A and type-B, depending on the substituent at the 5-position of the pyrazole ring. Although an alternate binding mode, observed in a crystal structure of one type-B compound, could not be reproduced with any of the above docking/scoring combinations, GOLD, with a template constraint based on the crystal structure coordinates, was able to reproduce the pose. As for type-A compounds, all docking conditions yielded similar poses to those observed in crystal structures. When predicting activities by scoring programs, the combination of docking with LigandFit/plp and scoring with LIGSCORE1_CFF gave the best correlation coefficient (r=0.60) between experimental pIC50 values and top-ranked rescores of 30 poses of each compound. With regard to type-A compounds, the correlation was 0.69. However, when 11 compounds, whose top-ranked rescored poses did not demonstrate the correct binding modes in reference to the crystal structure, were removed, the correlation rose to 0.75. Consequently, predicting activity on the basis of correct binding modes was found to be reliable.