D3R Grand Challenge 4: ligand similarity and MM-GBSA-based pose prediction and affinity ranking for BACE-1 inhibitors

The Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) Grand Challenges present an opportunity to assess, in the context of a blind predictive challenge, the accuracy and the limits of tools and methodologies designed to help guide pharmaceutical drug discovery projects. Here, we report the results of our participation in the D3R Grand Challenge 4 (GC4), which focused on predicting the binding poses and affinity ranking for compounds targeting the $$\beta$$-amyloid precursor protein (BACE-1). Our ligand similarity-based protocol using HYBRID (OpenEye Scientific Software) successfully identified poses close to the native binding mode for most of the ligands with less than 2 Å RMSD accuracy. Furthermore, we compared the performance of our HYBRID-based approach to that of AutoDock Vina and DOCK 6 and found that using a reference ligand to guide the docking process is a better strategy for pose prediction and helped HYBRID to perform better here. We also conducted end-point free energy estimates on molecules dynamics based ensembles of protein-ligand complexes using molecular mechanics combined with generalized Born surface area method (MM-GBSA). We found that the binding affinity ranking based on MM-GBSA scores have poor correlation with the experimental values. Finally, the main lessons from our participation in D3R GC4 are: (i) the generation of the macrocyclic conformers is a key step for successful pose prediction, (ii) the protonation states of the BACE-1 binding site should be treated carefully, (iii) the MM-GBSA method could not discriminate well between different predicted binding poses, and (iv) the MM-GBSA method does not perform well at predicting protein–ligand binding affinities here.     

Sampling and refinement protocols for template-based macrocycle docking: 2018 D3R Grand Challenge 4

We describe a new template-based method for docking flexible ligands such as macrocycles to proteins. It combines Monte-Carlo energy minimization on the manifold, a fast manifold search method, with BRIKARD for complex flexible ligand searching, and with the MELD accelerator of Replica-Exchange Molecular Dynamics simulations for atomistic degrees of freedom. Here we test the method in the Drug Design Data Resource blind Grand Challenge competition. This method was among the best performers in the competition, giving sub-angstrom prediction quality for the majority of the targets.     

Binding pose and affinity prediction in the 2016 D3R Grand Challenge 2 using the Wilma-SIE method

The Farnesoid X receptor (FXR) exhibits significant backbone movement in response to the binding of various ligands and can be a challenge for pose prediction algorithms. As part of the D3R Grand Challenge 2, we tested Wilma-SIE, a rigid-protein docking method, on a set of 36 FXR ligands for which the crystal structures had originally been blinded. These ligands covered several classes of compounds. To overcome the rigid protein limitations of the method, we used an ensemble of publicly available structures for FXR from the PDB. The use of the ensemble allowed Wilma-SIE to predict poses with average and median RMSDs of 2.3 and 1.4 Å, respectively. It was quite clear, however, that had we used a single structure for the receptor the success rate would have been much lower. The most successful predictions were obtained on chemical classes for which one or more crystal structures of the receptor bound to a molecule of the same class was available. In the absence of a crystal structure for the class, observing a consensus binding mode for the ligands of the class using one or more receptor structures of other classes seemed to be indicative of a reasonable pose prediction. Affinity prediction proved to be more challenging with generally poor correlation with experimental IC50s (Kendall tau?~?0.3). Even when the 36 crystal structures were used the accuracy of the predicted affinities was not appreciably improved. A possible cause of difficulty is the internal energy strain arising from conformational differences in the receptor across complexes, which may need to be properly estimated and incorporated into the SIE scoring function.     

Docking-undocking combination applied to the D3R Grand Challenge 2015

Novel methods for drug discovery are constantly under development and independent exercises to test and validate them for different goals are extremely useful. The drug discovery data resource (D3R) Grand Challenge 2015 offers an excellent opportunity as an external assessment and validation experiment for Computer-Aided Drug Discovery methods. The challenge comprises two protein targets and prediction tests: binding mode and ligand ranking. We have faced both of them with the same strategy: pharmacophore-guided docking followed by dynamic undocking (a new method tested experimentally here) and, where possible, critical assessment of the results based on pre-existing information. In spite of using methods that are qualitative in nature, our results for binding mode and ligand ranking were amongst the best on Hsp90. Results for MAP4K4 were less positive and we track the different performance across systems to the level of previous knowledge about accessible conformational states. We conclude that docking is quite effective if supplemented by dynamic undocking and empirical information (e.g. binding hot spots, productive protein conformations). This setup is well suited for virtual screening, a frequent application that was not explicitly tested in this edition of the D3R Grand Challenge 2015. Protein flexibility remains as the main cause for hard failures.     

CDOCKER and $$\lambda$$-dynamics for prospective prediction in D3R Grand Challenge 2

The opportunity to prospectively predict ligand bound poses and free energies of binding to the Farnesoid X Receptor in the D3R Grand Challenge 2 provided a useful exercise to evaluate CHARMM based docking (CDOCKER) and \(\lambda\)-dynamics methodologies for use in “real-world” applications in computer aided drug design. In addition to measuring their current performance, several recent methodological developments have been analyzed retrospectively to highlight best procedural practices in future applications. For pose prediction with CDOCKER, when the protein structure used for rigid receptor docking was close to the crystallographic holo structure, reliable poses were obtained. Benzimidazoles, with a known holo receptor structure, were successfully docked with an average RMSD of 0.97 \(\AA\). Other non-benzimidazole ligands displayed less accuracy largely because the receptor structures we chose for docking were too different from the experimental holo structures. However, retrospective analysis has shown that when these ligands were re-docked into their holo structures, the average RMSD dropped to 1.18 \(\AA\) for all ligands. When sulfonamides and spiros were docked with the apo structure, which agrees more with their holo structure than the structures we chose, five out of six ligands were correctly docked. These docking results emphasize the need for flexible receptor docking approaches. For \(\lambda\)-dynamics techniques, including multisite \(\lambda\)-dynamics (MS\(\lambda\)D), reasonable agreement with experiment was observed for the 33 ligands investigated; root mean square errors of 2.08 and 1.67 kcal/mol were obtained for free energy sets 1 and 2, respectively. Retrospectively, soft-core potentials, adaptive landscape flattening, and biasing potential replica exchange (BP-REX) algorithms were critical to model large substituent perturbations with sufficient precision and within restrictive timeframes, such as was required with participation in Grand Challenge 2. These developments, their associated benefits, and proposed procedures for their use in future applications are discussed.     

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/.     

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 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.     

Predicting the affinity of Farnesoid X Receptor ligands through a hierarchical ranking protocol: a D3R Grand Challenge 2 case study

The Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) Grand Challenges are blind contests organized to assess the state-of-the-art methods accuracy in predicting binding modes and relative binding free energies of experimentally validated ligands for a given target. The second stage of the D3R Grand Challenge 2 (GC2) was focused on ranking 102 compounds according to their predicted affinity for Farnesoid X Receptor. In this task, our workflow was ranked 5th out of the 77 submissions in the structure-based category. Our strategy consisted in (1) a combination of molecular docking using AutoDock 4.2 and manual edition of available structures for binding poses generation using SeeSAR, (2) the use of HYDE scoring for pose selection, and (3) a hierarchical ranking using HYDE and MM/GBSA. In this report, we detail our pose generation and ligands ranking protocols and provide guidelines to be used in a prospective computer aided drug design program.     

Performance of multiple docking and refinement methods in the pose prediction D3R prospective Grand Challenge 2016

We describe the performance of multiple pose prediction methods for the D3R 2016 Grand Challenge. The pose prediction challenge includes 36 ligands, which represent 4 chemotypes and some miscellaneous structures against the FXR ligand binding domain. In this study we use a mix of fully automated methods as well as human-guided methods with considerations of both the challenge data and publicly available data. The methods include ensemble docking, colony entropy pose prediction, target selection by molecular similarity, molecular dynamics guided pose refinement, and pose selection by visual inspection. We evaluated the success of our predictions by method, chemotype, and relevance of publicly available data. For the overall data set, ensemble docking, visual inspection, and molecular dynamics guided pose prediction performed the best with overall mean RMSDs of 2.4, 2.2, and 2.2 Å respectively. For several individual challenge molecules, the best performing method is evaluated in light of that particular ligand. We also describe the protein, ligand, and public information data preparations that are typical of our binding mode prediction workflow.     

Coupling enhanced sampling of the apo-receptor with template-based ligand conformers selection: performance in pose prediction in the D3R Grand Challenge 4

Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design - We report the performance of our newly introduced Ensemble Docking with Enhanced sampling of pocket Shape (EDES) protocol coupled to a template-based...     

Lessons learned from participating in D3R 2016 Grand Challenge 2: compounds targeting the farnesoid X receptor

D3R 2016 Grand Challenge 2 focused on predictions of binding modes and affinities for 102 compounds against the farnesoid X receptor (FXR). In this challenge, two distinct methods, a docking-based method and a template-based method, were employed by our team for the binding mode prediction. For the new template-based method, 3D ligand similarities were calculated for each query compound against the ligands in the co-crystal structures of FXR available in Protein Data Bank. The binding mode was predicted based on the co-crystal protein structure containing the ligand with the best ligand similarity score against the query compound. For the FXR dataset, the template-based method achieved a better performance than the docking-based method on the binding mode prediction. For the binding affinity prediction, an in-house knowledge-based scoring function ITScore2 and MM/PBSA approach were employed. Good performance was achieved for MM/PBSA, whereas the performance of ITScore2 was sensitive to ligand composition, e.g. the percentage of carbon atoms in the compounds. The sensitivity to ligand composition could be a clue for the further improvement of our knowledge-based scoring function.     

Predicting binding poses and affinities for protein - ligand complexes in the 2015 D3R Grand Challenge using a physical model with a statistical parameter estimation

The 2015 D3R Grand Challenge provided an opportunity to test our new model for the binding free energy of small molecules, as well as to assess our protocol to predict binding poses for protein-ligand complexes. Our pose predictions were ranked 3–9 for the HSP90 dataset, depending on the assessment metric. For the MAP4K dataset the ranks are very dispersed and equal to 2–35, depending on the assessment metric, which does not provide any insight into the accuracy of the method. The main success of our pose prediction protocol was the re-scoring stage using the recently developed Convex-PL potential. We make a thorough analysis of our docking predictions made with AutoDock Vina and discuss the effect of the choice of rigid receptor templates, the number of flexible residues in the binding pocket, the binding pocket size, and the benefits of re-scoring. However, the main challenge was to predict experimentally determined binding affinities for two blind test sets. Our affinity prediction model consisted of two terms, a pairwise-additive enthalpy, and a non pairwise-additive entropy. We trained the free parameters of the model with a regularized regression using affinity and structural data from the PDBBind database. Our model performed very well on the training set, however, failed on the two test sets. We explain the drawback and pitfalls of our model, in particular in terms of relative coverage of the test set by the training set and missed dynamical properties from crystal structures, and discuss different routes to improve it.     

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.     

Combining self- and cross-docking as benchmark tools: the performance of DockBench in the D3R Grand Challenge 2

Molecular docking is a powerful tool in the field of computer-aided molecular design. In particular, it is the technique of choice for the prediction of a ligand pose within its target binding site. A multitude of docking methods is available nowadays, whose performance may vary depending on the data set. Therefore, some non-trivial choices should be made before starting a docking simulation. In the same framework, the selection of the target structure to use could be challenging, since the number of available experimental structures is increasing. Both issues have been explored within this work. The pose prediction of a pool of 36 compounds provided by D3R Grand Challenge 2 organizers was preceded by a pipeline to choose the best protein/docking-method couple for each blind ligand. An integrated benchmark approach including ligand shape comparison and cross-docking evaluations was implemented inside our DockBench software. The results are encouraging and show that bringing attention to the choice of the docking simulation fundamental components improves the results of the binding mode predictions.     

Binding affinities of the farnesoid X receptor in the D3R Grand Challenge 2 estimated by free-energy perturbation and docking

We have studied the binding of 102 ligands to the farnesoid X receptor within the D3R Grand Challenge 2016 blind-prediction competition. First, we employed docking with five different docking software and scoring functions. The selected docked poses gave an average root-mean-squared deviation of 4.2 Å. Consensus scoring gave decent results with a Kendall’s τ of 0.26?±?0.06 and a Spearman’s ρ of 0.41?±?0.08. For a subset of 33 ligands, we calculated relative binding free energies with free-energy perturbation. Five transformations between the ligands involved a change of the net charge and we implemented and benchmarked a semi-analytic correction (Rocklin et al., J Chem Phys 139:184103, 2013) for artifacts caused by the periodic boundary conditions and Ewald summation. The results gave a mean absolute deviation of 7.5 kJ/mol compared to the experimental estimates and a correlation coefficient of R ²?=?0.1. These results were among the four best in this competition out of 22 submissions. The charge corrections were significant (7–8 kJ/mol) and always improved the results. By employing 23 intermediate states in the free-energy perturbation, there was a proper overlap between all states and the precision was 0.1–0.7 kJ/mol. However, thermodynamic cycles indicate that the sampling was insufficient in some of the perturbations.     

Self-organizing neural networks for modeling robust 3D and 4D QSAR: application to dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors

We have used SOM and grid 3D and 4D QSAR schemes for modeling the activity of a series of dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors. Careful analysis of the performance and external predictivities proves that this method can provide an efficient inhibition model.     

Workflows and performances in the ranking prediction of 2016 D3R Grand Challenge 2: lessons learned from a collaborative effort

The 2016 D3R Grand Challenge 2 includes both pose and affinity or ranking predictions. This article is focused exclusively on affinity predictions submitted to the D3R challenge from a collaborative effort of the modeling and informatics group. Our submissions include ranking of 102 ligands covering 4 different chemotypes against the FXR ligand binding domain structure, and the relative binding affinity predictions of the two designated free energy subsets of 15 and 18 compounds. Using all the complex structures prepared in the same way allowed us to cover many types of workflows and compare their performances effectively. We evaluated typical workflows used in our daily structure-based design modeling support, which include docking scores, force field-based scores, QM/MM, MMGBSA, MD-MMGBSA, and MacroModel interaction energy estimations. The best performing methods for the two free energy subsets are discussed. Our results suggest that affinity ranking still remains very challenging; that the knowledge of more structural information does not necessarily yield more accurate predictions; and that visual inspection and human intervention are considerably important for ranking. Knowledge of the mode of action and protein flexibility along with visualization tools that depict polar and hydrophobic maps are very useful for visual inspection. QM/MM-based workflows were found to be powerful in affinity ranking and are encouraged to be applied more often. The standardized input and output enable systematic analysis and support methodology development and improvement for high level blinded predictions.