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.     

Evaluation of docking calculations on X-ray structures using CONSENSUS-DOCK

We are participating in the challenge of identifying active compounds for target proteins using structure-based virtual screening (SBVS). We use an in-house customized docking program, CONSENSUS-DOCK, which is a customized version of the DOCK4 program in which three scoring functions (DOCK4, FlexX and PMF) and consensus scoring have been implemented. This paper compares the docking calculation results obtained using CONSENSUS-DOCK and DOCK4, and demonstrates that CONSENSUS-DOCK produces better results than DOCK4 for major X-ray structures obtained from the Protein Data Bank (PDB).     

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.     

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.     

Improving molecular docking through eHiTS’ tunable scoring function

We present three complementary approaches for score-tuning that improve docking performance in pose prediction, virtual screening and binding affinity assessment. The methodology utilizes experimental data to customize the scoring function for the system of interest considering the specific docking scenario. The tuning approach, which has been implemented as an automated utility in eHiTS, is introduced as a solution to one of the conundrums of the molecular docking paradigm, namely, the lack of a universally well performing scoring function. The accuracy of scoring functions has been shown to be generally system-dependent, and particularly lacking for binding energy and bio-activity predictions. In the proposed approach, pose and energy predictions are enhanced by adjusting the relative weights of the eHiTS energy terms to improve score-RMSD or score-affinity correlations. In a virtual screening context ligand-based similarity is used to rescale the docking score such that better enrichment factors are achieved. We discuss the algorithmic details of the methods, and demonstrate the effects of score tuning on a variety of targets, including CDK2, BACE1 and neuraminidase, as well as on the popular benchmarks—the Directory of Useful Decoys and the PDBBind database.     

Exhaustive search and solvated interaction energy (SIE) for virtual screening and affinity prediction

We carried out a prospective evaluation of the utility of the SIE (solvation interaction energy) scoring function for virtual screening and binding affinity prediction. Since experimental structures of the complexes were not provided, this was an exercise in virtual docking as well. We used our exhaustive docking program, Wilma, to provide high-quality poses that were rescored using SIE to provide binding affinity predictions. We also tested the combination of SIE with our latest solvation model, first shell of hydration (FiSH), which captures some of the discrete properties of water within a continuum model. We achieved good enrichment in virtual screening of fragments against trypsin, with an area under the curve of about 0.7 for the receiver operating characteristic curve. Moreover, the early enrichment performance was quite good with 50% of true actives recovered with a 15% false positive rate in a prospective calculation and with a 3% false positive rate in a retrospective application of SIE with FiSH. Binding affinity predictions for both trypsin and host-guest complexes were generally within 2 kcal/mol of the experimental values. However, the rank ordering of affinities differing by 2 kcal/mol or less was not well predicted. On the other hand, it was encouraging that the incorporation of a more sophisticated solvation model into SIE resulted in better discrimination of true binders from binders. This suggests that the inclusion of proper Physics in our models is a fruitful strategy for improving the reliability of our binding affinity predictions.     

Lead Finder docking and virtual screening evaluation with Astex and DUD test sets

Lead Finder is a molecular docking software. Sampling uses an original implementation of the genetic algorithm that involves a number of additional optimization procedures. Lead Finder's scoring functions employ a set of semi-empiric molecular mechanics functionals that have been parameterized independently for docking, binding energy predictions and rank-ordering for virtual screening. Sampling and scoring both utilize a staged approach, moving from fast but less accurate algorithm versions to computationally more intensive but more accurate versions. Lead Finder includes tools for the preparation of full atom protein and ligand models. In this exercise, Lead Finder achieved 72.9% docking success rate on the Astex test set when the original author-prepared full atom models were used, and 74.1% success rate when the structures were prepared by Lead Finder. The major cause of docking failures were scoring errors resulting from the use of imperfect solvation models. In many cases, docking errors could be corrected by the proper protonation and the use of correct cyclic conformations of ligands. In virtual screening experiments on the DUD test set the early enrichment factor of several tens was achieved on average. However, the area under the ROC curve ("AUC ROC") ranged from 0.70 to 0.74 depending on the screening protocol used, and the separation from the null model was not perfect-0.12-0.15 units of AUC ROC. We assume that effective virtual screening in the whole range of enrichment curve and not just at the early enrichment stages requires more accurate solvation modeling and accounting for the protein backbone flexibility.     

Exhaustive docking and solvated interaction energy scoring: lessons learned from the SAMPL4 challenge

We continued prospective assessments of the Wilma–solvated interaction energy (SIE) platform for pose prediction, binding affinity prediction, and virtual screening on the challenging SAMPL4 data sets including the HIV-integrase inhibitor and two host–guest systems. New features of the docking algorithm and scoring function are tested here prospectively for the first time. Wilma–SIE provides good correlations with actual binding affinities over a wide range of binding affinities that includes strong binders as in the case of SAMPL4 host–guest systems. Absolute binding affinities are also reproduced with appropriate training of the scoring function on available data sets or from comparative estimation of the change in target’s vibrational entropy. Even when binding modes are known, SIE predictions lack correlation with experimental affinities within dynamic ranges below 2 kcal/mol as in the case of HIV-integrase ligands, but they correctly signaled the narrowness of the dynamic range. Using a common protein structure for all ligands can reduce the noise, while incorporating a more sophisticated solvation treatment improves absolute predictions. The HIV-integrase virtual screening data set consists of promiscuous weak binders with relatively high flexibility and thus it falls outside of the applicability domain of the Wilma–SIE docking platform. Despite these difficulties, unbiased docking around three known binding sites of the enzyme resulted in over a third of ligands being docked within 2 Å from their actual poses and over half of the ligands docked in the correct site, leading to better-than-random virtual screening results.     

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.     

Molecular Substantiation and Drug Efficacy of Relatively High Molecular Weight S‐BINOLs; Appraised as Breast Cancer Medication and PI3Kinase Inhibitors

Relatively high molecular weight S‐BINOLs with substituted functional groups were synthesized, and structures were elucidated by FTIR, ¹H nuclear magnetic resonance, ¹³C nuclear magnetic resonance, and HRMS. As a preliminary step, the compounds were docked into the active site of phosphoinositide3‐kinase (PI3Kinase) (Protein Data Bank ID: 2IUG) that is a crucial regulator of apoptosis or programmed cell death. To ensure the PI3Kinase inhibition, because it was predicted as the most suitable bioactivity of these compounds, a competitive ELISA PI3Kinase inhibition study was carried out. Compounds 3 , 4a , 4b , and 6 were assessed for cytotoxicity/antiproliferative effects on MCF‐7 (breast cancer) and HCT116 (colon cancer) cell lines. In the docking studies, excellent binding affinities of 3 , 4a , 4b , and 6 (−11.36, −14.52, −14.86, and −21.76 kcal/mol, respectively) and the inhibitory constants (ki) (4.75 nM, 81.64 pM, 78.23 pM, and 14.24 pM, respectively) encouraged us to carry out anticancer studies further. Excellent inhibitory values were obtained in the range of 82–90% relative activity and IC₅₀ range of 5–12 nM. In the cytotoxicity, the relative inhibition activity was remarkably found high in MCF‐7 cell lines as 89.14% ( 6 ), 82.18% ( 4b ), 80.46% ( 3 ), and 74.78% ( 4a ) with the IC₅₀ range of 0.02–0.18 μM. No compounds were found inactive for the proposed activity in this study. The Structure Activity Relationship studies prove that compounds 3 , 4a , 4b , and 6 are specific PI3Kinase inhibitors with the competence to cure breast cancers.     

Docking rigid macrocycles using Convex-PL,AutoDock Vina,and RDKit in the D3R Grand Challenge 4

The D3R Grand Challenge 4 provided a brilliant opportunity to test macrocyclic docking protocols on a diverse high-quality experimental data. We participated in both pose and affinity prediction exercises. Overall, we aimed to use an automated structure-based docking pipeline built around a set of tools developed in our team. This exercise again demonstrated a crucial importance of the correct local ligand geometry for the overall success of docking. Starting from the second part of the pose prediction stage, we developed a stable pipeline for sampling macrocycle conformers. This resulted in the subangstrom average precision of our pose predictions. In the affinity prediction exercise we obtained average results. However, we could improve these when using docking poses submitted by the best predictors. Our docking tools including the Convex-PL scoring function are available at https://team.inria.fr/nano-d/software/.     

Assessing the performance of the molecular mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann surface area and molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area methods. II. The accuracy of ranking poses generated from docking

In molecular docking, it is challenging to develop a scoring function that is accurate to conduct high-throughput screenings. Most scoring functions implemented in popular docking software packages were developed with many approximations for computational efficiency, which sacrifices the accuracy of prediction. With advanced technology and powerful computational hardware nowadays, it is feasible to use rigorous scoring functions, such as molecular mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann surface area (MM/PBSA) and molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area (MM/GBSA) in molecular docking studies. Here, we systematically investigated the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA to identify the correct binding conformations and predict the binding free energies for 98 protein-ligand complexes. Comparison studies showed that MM/GBSA (69.4%) outperformed MM/PBSA (45.5%) and many popular scoring functions to identify the correct binding conformations. Moreover, we found that molecular dynamics simulations are necessary for some systems to identify the correct binding conformations. Based on our results, we proposed the guideline for MM/GBSA to predict the binding conformations. We then tested the performance of MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA to reproduce the binding free energies of the 98 protein-ligand complexes. The best prediction of MM/GBSA model with internal dielectric constant 2.0, produced a Spearman's correlation coefficient of 0.66, which is better than MM/PBSA (0.49) and almost all scoring functions used in molecular docking. In summary, MM/GBSA performs well for both binding pose predictions and binding free-energy estimations and is efficient to re-score the top-hit poses produced by other less-accurate scoring functions.     

Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening

We present the results of a comprehensive study in which we explored how the docking procedure affects the performance of a virtual screening approach. We used four docking engines and applied 10 scoring functions to the top-ranked docking solutions of seeded databases against six target proteins. The scores of the experimental poses were placed within the total set to assess whether the scoring function required an accurate pose to provide the appropriate rank for the seeded compounds. This method allows a direct comparison of library ranking efficacy. Our results indicate that the LigandFit/Ligscore1 and LigandFit/GOLD docking/scoring combinations, and to a lesser degree FlexX/FlexX, Glide/Ligscore1, DOCK/PMF (Tripos implementation), LigandFit1/Ligscore2 and LigandFit/PMF (Tripos implementation) were able to retrieve the highest number of actives at a 10% fraction of the database when all targets were looked upon collectively. We also show that the scoring functions rank the observed binding modes higher than the inaccurate poses provided that the experimental poses are available. This finding stresses the discriminatory ability of the scoring algorithms, when better poses are available, and suggests that the number of false positives can be lowered with conformers closer to bioactive ones.     

Alternative to consensus scoring--a new approach toward the qualitative combination of docking algorithms

Since the development of the first docking algorithm in the early 1980s a variety of different docking approaches and tools has been created in order to solve the docking problem. Subsequent studies have shown that the docking performance of most tools strongly depends on the considered target. Thus it is hard to choose the best algorithm in the situation at hand. The docking tools FlexX and AutoDock are among the most popular programs for docking flexible ligands into target proteins. Their analysis, comparison, and combination are the topics of this study. In contrast to standard consensus scoring techniques which integrate different scoring algorithms usually only by their rank, we focus on a more general approach. Our new combined docking workflow-AutoxX-unifies the interaction models of AutoDock and FlexX rather than combining the scores afterward which allows interpretability of the results. The performance of FlexX, AutoDock, and the combined algorithm AutoxX was evaluated on the basis of a test set of 204 structures from the Protein Data Bank (PDB). AutoDock and FlexX show a highly diverse redocking accuracy at the different complexes which assures again the usefulness of taking several docking algorithms into account. With the combined docking the number of complexes reproduced below an rmsd of 2.5 A could be raised by 10. AutoxX had a strong positive effect on several targets. The highest performance increase could be found when redocking 20 protein-ligand complexes of alpha-thrombin, plasmepsin, neuraminidase, and d-xylose isomerase. A decrease was found for gamma-chymotrypsin. The results show that--applied to the right target-AutoxX can improve the docking performance compared to AutoDock and FlexX alone.     

Scoring by intermolecular pairwise propensities of exposed residues (SIPPER): a new efficient potential for protein-protein docking

A detailed and complete structural knowledge of the interactome is one of the grand challenges in Biology, and a variety of computational docking approaches have been developed to complement experimental efforts and help in the characterization of protein-protein interactions. Among the different docking scoring methods, those based on physicochemical considerations can give the maximum accuracy at the atomic level, but they are usually computationally demanding and necessarily noisy when implemented in rigid-body approaches. Coarser-grained knowledge-based potentials are less sensitive to details of atomic arrangements, thus providing an efficient alternative for scoring of rigid-body docking poses. In this study, we have extracted new statistical potentials from intermolecular pairs of exposed residues in known complex structures, which were then used to score protein-protein docking poses. The new method, called SIPPER (scoring by intermolecular pairwise propensities of exposed residues), combines the value of residue desolvation based on solvent-exposed area with the propensity-based contribution of intermolecular residue pairs. This new scoring function found a near-native orientation within the top 10 predictions in nearly one-third of the cases of a standard docking benchmark and proved to be also useful as a filtering step, drastically reducing the number of docking candidates needed by energy-based methods like pyDock.     

Retrospective docking study of PDE4B ligands and an analysis of the behavior of selected scoring functions

Scoring forms a major obstacle to the success of any docking study. In general, fast scoring functions perform poorly when used to determine the relative affinity of ligands for their receptors. In this study, the objective was not to rank compounds with confidence but simply to identify a scoring method which could provide a 4-fold hit enrichment in a screening sample over random selection. To this end, LigandFit, a fast shape matching docking algorithm, was used to dock a variety of known inhibitors of type 4 phosphodiesterase (PDE4B) into its binding site determined crystallographically for a series of pyrazolopyridine inhibitors. The success of identifying good poses with this technique was explored through RMSD comparisons with 19 known inhibitors for which crystallographic structures were available. The effectiveness of five scoring functions (PMF, JAIN, PLP2, LigScore2, and DockScore) was then evaluated through consideration of the success in enriching the top ranked fractions of nine artificial databases, constructed by seeding 1980 inactive ligands (pIC50 < 5) with 20 randomly selected inhibitors (pIC50 > 6.5). PMF and JAIN showed high average enrichment factors (greater than 4 times) in the top 5-10% of the ranked databases. Rank-based consensus scoring was then investigated, and the rational combination of 3 scoring functions resulted in more robust scoring schemes with (cScore)-DPmJ (consensus score of DockScore, PMF, and JAIN) and (cScore)-PPmJ (PLP2, PMF, and JAIN) yielding particularly good results. These cScores are believed to be of greater general application. Finally, the analysis of the behavior of the scoring functions across different chemotypes uncovered the inherent bias of the docking and scoring toward compounds in the same structural family as that employed for the crystal structure, suggesting the need to use multiple versions of the binding site for more successful virtual screening strategies.     

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 scoring function for docking ligands to low-resolution protein structures

We present a docking method that uses a scoring function for protein-ligand docking that is designed to maximize the docking success rate for low-resolution protein structures. We find that the resulting scoring function parameters are very different depending on whether they were optimized for high- or low-resolution protein structures. We show that this docking method can be successfully applied to predict the ligand-binding site of low-resolution structures. For a set of 25 protein-ligand complexes, in 76% of the cases, more than 50% of ligand-contacting residues are correctly predicted (using receptor crystal structures where the binding site is unspecified). Using decoys of the receptor structures having a 4 A RMSD from the native structure, for the same set of complexes, in 72% of the cases, we obtain at least one correctly predicted ligand-contacting residue. Furthermore, using an 81-protein-ligand set described by Jain, in 76 (93.8%) cases, the algorithm correctly predicts more than 50% of the ligand-contacting residues when native protein structures are used. Using 3 A RMSD from native decoys, in all but two cases (97.5%), the algorithm predicts at least one ligand-binding residue correctly. Finally, compared to the previously published Dolores method, for 298 protein-ligand pairs, the number of cases in which at least half of the specific contacts are correctly predicted is more than four times greater.     

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.