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.     

Ligand-biased ensemble receptor docking (LigBEnD): a hybrid ligand/receptor structure-based approach

Ligand docking to flexible protein molecules can be efficiently carried out through ensemble docking to multiple protein conformations, either from experimental X-ray structures or from in silico simulations. The success of ensemble docking often requires the careful selection of complementary protein conformations, through docking and scoring of known co-crystallized ligands. False positives, in which a ligand in a wrong pose achieves a better docking score than that of native pose, arise as additional protein conformations are added. In the current study, we developed a new ligand-biased ensemble receptor docking method and composite scoring function which combine the use of ligand-based atomic property field (APF) method with receptor structure-based docking. This method helps us to correctly dock 30 out of 36 ligands presented by the D3R docking challenge. For the six mis-docked ligands, the cognate receptor structures prove to be too different from the 40 available experimental Pocketome conformations used for docking and could be identified only by receptor sampling beyond experimentally explored conformational subspace.     

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.     

Improving Blind Docking in DOCK6 through an Automated Preliminary Fragment Probing Strategy

Probing protein surfaces to accurately predict the binding site and conformation of a small molecule is a challenge currently addressed through mainly two different approaches: blind docking and cavity detection-guided docking. Although cavity detection-guided blind docking has yielded high success rates, it is less practical when a large number of molecules must be screened against many detected binding sites. On the other hand, blind docking allows for simultaneous search of the whole protein surface, which however entails the loss of accuracy and speed. To bridge this gap, in this study, we developed and tested BLinDPyPr, an automated pipeline which uses FTMap and DOCK6 to perform a hybrid blind docking strategy. Through our algorithm, FTMap docked probe clusters are converted into DOCK6 spheres for determining binding regions. Because these spheres are solely derived from FTMap probes, their locations are contained in and specific to multiple potential binding pockets, which become the regions that are simultaneously probed and chosen by the search algorithm based on the properties of each candidate ligand. This method yields pose prediction results (45.2–54.3% success rates) comparable to those of site-specific docking with the classic DOCK6 workflow (49.7–54.3%) and is half as time-consuming as the conventional blind docking method with DOCK6.     

Effects of protein conformation in docking: improved pose prediction through protein pocket adaptation

Computational methods for docking ligands have been shown to be remarkably dependent on precise protein conformation, where acceptable results in pose prediction have been generally possible only in the artificial case of re-docking a ligand into a protein binding site whose conformation was determined in the presence of the same ligand (the “cognate” docking problem). In such cases, on well curated protein/ligand complexes, accurate dockings can be returned as top-scoring over 75% of the time using tools such as Surflex-Dock. A critical application of docking in modeling for lead optimization requires accurate pose prediction for novel ligands, ranging from simple synthetic analogs to very different molecular scaffolds. Typical results for widely used programs in the “cross-docking case” (making use of a single fixed protein conformation) have rates closer to 20% success. By making use of protein conformations from multiple complexes, Surflex-Dock yields an average success rate of 61% across eight pharmaceutically relevant targets. Following docking, protein pocket adaptation and rescoring identifies single pose families that are correct an average of 67% of the time. Consideration of the best of two pose families (from alternate scoring regimes) yields a 75% mean success rate.     

SDOVS: A solvent dipole ordering‐based method for virtual screening

We previously reported that solvent dipole ordering (SDO) at the ligand binding site of a protein indicates an outline of the preferred shape and binding pose of the ligands. We suggested that SDO‐mimetic pseudo‐molecules that mimic the 3D shape of the SDO region could be used as molecular queries with a shape similarity matching method in virtual screening. In this work, a virtual screening method based on SDO, named SDOVS, was proposed. This method was applied to virtual screening of ligands for four typical drug target proteins and the performance compared with that of FRED (well‐known rigid docking method); the efficiency of SDOVS was demonstrated to be better than FRED. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem, 2010     

Numerical errors and chaotic behavior in docking simulations

This work examines the sensitivity of docking programs to tiny changes in ligand input files. The results show that nearly identical ligand input structures can produce dramatically different top-scoring docked poses. Even changing the atom order in a ligand input file can produce significantly different poses and scores. In well-behaved cases the docking variations are small and follow a normal distribution around a central pose and score, but in many cases the variations are large and reflect wildly different top scores and binding modes. The docking variations are characterized by statistical methods, and the sensitivity of high-throughput and more precise docking methods are compared. The results demonstrate that part of docking variation is due to numerical sensitivity and potentially chaotic effects in current docking algorithms and not solely due to incomplete ligand conformation and pose searching. These results have major implications for the way docking is currently used for pose prediction, ranking, and virtual screening.     

Surflex-Dock: Docking benchmarks and real-world application

Benchmarks for molecular docking have historically focused on re-docking the cognate ligand of a well-determined protein-ligand complex to measure geometric pose prediction accuracy, and measurement of virtual screening performance has been focused on increasingly large and diverse sets of target protein structures, cognate ligands, and various types of decoy sets. Here, pose prediction is reported on the Astex Diverse set of 85 protein ligand complexes, and virtual screening performance is reported on the DUD set of 40 protein targets. In both cases, prepared structures of targets and ligands were provided by symposium organizers. The re-prepared data sets yielded results not significantly different than previous reports of Surflex-Dock on the two benchmarks. Minor changes to protein coordinates resulting from complex pre-optimization had large effects on observed performance, highlighting the limitations of cognate ligand re-docking for pose prediction assessment. Docking protocols developed for cross-docking, which address protein flexibility and produce discrete families of predicted poses, produced substantially better performance for pose prediction. Performance on virtual screening performance was shown to benefit by employing and combining multiple screening methods: docking, 2D molecular similarity, and 3D molecular similarity. In addition, use of multiple protein conformations significantly improved screening enrichment.     

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/.     

Focused grid‐based resampling for protein docking and mapping

The fast Fourier transform (FFT) sampling algorithm has been used with success in application to protein‐protein docking and for protein mapping, the latter docking a variety of small organic molecules for the identification of binding hot spots on the target protein. Here we explore the local rather than global usage of the FFT sampling approach in docking applications. If the global FFT based search yields a near‐native cluster of docked structures for a protein complex, then focused resampling of the cluster generally leads to a substantial increase in the number of conformations close to the native structure. In protein mapping, focused resampling of the selected hot spot regions generally reveals further hot spots that, while not as strong as the primary hot spots, also contribute to ligand binding. The detection of additional ligand binding regions is shown by the improved overlap between hot spots and bound ligands. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Evaluation of DOCK 6 as a pose generation and database enrichment tool

In conjunction with the recent American Chemical Society symposium titled "Docking and Scoring: A Review of Docking Programs" the performance of the DOCK6 program was evaluated through (1) pose reproduction and (2) database enrichment calculations on a common set of organizer-specified systems and datasets (ASTEX, DUD, WOMBAT). Representative baseline grid score results averaged over five docking runs yield a relatively high pose identification success rate of 72.5?% (symmetry corrected rmsd) and sampling rate of 91.9?% for the multi site ASTEX set (N?=?147) using organizer-supplied structures. Numerous additional docking experiments showed that ligand starting conditions, symmetry, multiple binding sites, clustering, and receptor preparation protocols all affect success. Encouragingly, in some cases, use of more sophisticated scoring and sampling methods yielded results which were comparable (Amber score ligand movable protocol) or exceeded (LMOD score) analogous baseline grid-score results. The analysis highlights the potential benefit and challenges associated with including receptor flexibility and indicates that different scoring functions have system dependent strengths and weaknesses. Enrichment studies with the DUD database prepared using the SB2010 preparation protocol and native ligand pairings yielded individual area under the curve (AUC) values derived from receiver operating characteristic curve analysis ranging from 0.29 (bad enrichment) to 0.96 (good enrichment) with an average value of 0.60 (27/38 have AUC?≥?0.5). Strong early enrichment was also observed in the critically important 1.0-2.0?% region. Somewhat surprisingly, an alternative receptor preparation protocol yielded comparable results. As expected, semi-random pairings yielded poorer enrichments, in particular, for unrelated receptors. Overall, the breadth and number of experiments performed provide a useful snapshot of current capabilities of DOCK6 as well as starting points to guide future development efforts to further improve sampling and scoring.     

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     

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.     

Blind docking method combining search of low‐resolution binding sites with ligand pose refinement by molecular dynamics‐based global optimization

This study describes the development of a new blind hierarchical docking method, bhDock, its implementation, and accuracy assessment. The bhDock method uses two‐step algorithm. First, a comprehensive set of low‐resolution binding sites is determined by analyzing entire protein surface and ranked by a simple score function. Second, ligand position is determined via a molecular dynamics‐based method of global optimization starting from a small set of high ranked low‐resolution binding sites. The refinement of the ligand binding pose starts from uniformly distributed multiple initial ligand orientations and uses simulated annealing molecular dynamics coupled with guided force‐field deformation of protein–ligand interactions to find the global minimum. Assessment of the bhDock method on the set of 37 protein–ligand complexes has shown the success rate of predictions of 78%, which is better than the rate reported for the most cited docking methods, such as AutoDock, DOCK, GOLD, and FlexX, on the same set of complexes. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem 2010     

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.     

Development and validation of a modular, extensible docking program: DOCK 5

We report on the development and validation of a new version of DOCK. The algorithm has been rewritten in a modular format, which allows for easy implementation of new scoring functions, sampling methods and analysis tools. We validated the sampling algorithm with a test set of 114 protein-ligand complexes. Using an optimized parameter set, we are able to reproduce the crystal ligand pose to within 2 A of the crystal structure for 79% of the test cases using our rigid ligand docking algorithm with an average run time of 1 min per complex and for 72% of the test cases using our flexible ligand docking algorithm with an average run time of 5 min per complex. Finally, we perform an analysis of the docking failures in the test set and determine that the sampling algorithm is generally sufficient for the binding pose prediction problem for up to 7 rotatable bonds; i.e. 99% of the rigid ligand docking cases and 95% of the flexible ligand docking cases are sampled successfully. We point out that success rates could be improved through more advanced modeling of the receptor prior to docking and through improvement of the force field parameters, particularly for structures containing metal-based cofactors.     

Adaptation of a fast Fourier transform-based docking algorithm for protein design

Designing proteins with novel protein/protein binding properties can be achieved by combining the tools that have been developed independently for protein docking and protein design. We describe here the sequence-independent generation of protein dimer orientations by protein docking for use as scaffolds in protein sequence design algorithms. To dock monomers into sequence-independent dimer conformations, we use a reduced representation in which the side chains are approximated by spheres with atomic radii derived from known C2 symmetry-related homodimers. The interfaces of C2-related homodimers are usually more hydrophobic and protein core-like than the interfaces of heterodimers; we parameterize the radii for docking against this feature to capture and recreate the spatial characteristics of a hydrophobic interface. A fast Fourier transform-based geometric recognition algorithm is used for docking the reduced representation protein models. The resulting docking algorithm successfully predicted the wild-type homodimer orientations in 65 out of 121 dimer test cases. The success rate increases to approximately 70% for the subset of molecules with large surface area burial in the interface relative to their chain length. Forty-five of the predictions exhibited less than 1 A C(alpha) RMSD compared to the native X-ray structures. The reduced protein representation therefore appears to be a reasonable approximation and can be used to position protein backbones in plausible orientations for homodimer design.     

Lessons in molecular recognition. 2. Assessing and improving cross-docking accuracy

Docking methods are used to predict the manner in which a ligand binds to a protein receptor. Many studies have assessed the success rate of programs in self-docking tests, whereby a ligand is docked into the protein structure from which it was extracted. Cross-docking, or using a protein structure from a complex containing a different ligand, provides a more realistic assessment of a docking program's ability to reproduce X-ray results. In this work, cross-docking was performed with CDocker, Fred, and Rocs using multiple X-ray structures for eight proteins (two kinases, one nuclear hormone receptor, one serine protease, two metalloproteases, and two phosphodiesterases). While average cross-docking accuracy is not encouraging, it is shown that using the protein structure from the complex that contains the bound ligand most similar to the docked ligand increases docking accuracy for all methods ("similarity selection"). Identifying the most successful protein conformer ("best selection") and similarity selection substantially reduce the difference between self-docking and average cross-docking accuracy. We identify universal predictors of docking accuracy (i.e., showing consistent behavior across most protein-method combinations), and show that models for predicting docking accuracy built using these parameters can be used to select the most appropriate docking method.