Ligand-specific scoring functions: improved ranking of docking solutions1

Molecular docking is a powerful computational method that has been widely used in many biomolecular studies to predict geometry of a protein-ligand complex. However, while its conformational search algorithms are usually able to generate correct conformation of a ligand in the binding site, the scoring methods often fail to discriminate it among many false variants. We propose to treat this problem by applying more precise ligand-specific scoring filters to re-rank docking solutions. In this way specific features of interactions between protein and different types of compounds can be implicitly taken into account. New scoring functions were constructed including hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic and hydrophilic complementarity terms. These scoring functions also discriminate ligands by the size of the molecule, the total hydrophobicity, and the number of peptide bonds for peptide ligands. Weighting coefficients of the scoring functions were adjusted using a training set of 60 protein–ligand complexes. The proposed method was then tested on the results of docking obtained for an additional 70 complexes. In both cases the success rate was 5–8% better compared to the standard functions implemented in popular docking software.     

DOX: A new computational protocol for accurate prediction of the protein–ligand binding structures

Molecular docking techniques have now been widely used to predict the protein–ligand binding modes, especially when the structures of crystal complexes are not available. Most docking algorithms are able to effectively generate and rank a large number of probable binding poses. However, it is hard for them to accurately evaluate these poses and identify the most accurate binding structure. In this study, we first examined the performance of some docking programs, based on a testing set made of 15 crystal complexes with drug statins for the human 3‐hydroxy‐3‐methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase (HMGR). We found that most of the top ranking HMGR–statin binding poses, predicted by the docking programs, were energetically unstable as revealed by the high theoretical‐level calculations, which were usually accompanied by the large deviations from the geometric parameters of the corresponding crystal binding structures. Subsequently, we proposed a new computational protocol, DOX, based on the joint use of molecular Docking, ONIOM, and eXtended ONIOM (XO) methods to predict the accurate binding structures for the protein–ligand complexes of interest. Our testing results demonstrate that the DOX protocol can efficiently predict accurate geometries for all 15 HMGR‐statin crystal complexes without exception. This study suggests a promising computational route, as an effective alternative to the experimental one, toward predicting the accurate binding structures, which is the prerequisite for all the deep understandings of the properties, functions, and mechanisms of the protein–ligand complexes. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Modeling loop backbone flexibility in receptor‐ligand docking simulations

The relevance of receptor conformational change during ligand binding is well documented for many pharmaceutically relevant receptors, but is still not fully accounted for in in silico docking methods. While there has been significant progress in treatment of receptor side chain flexibility sampling of backbone flexibility remains challenging because the conformational space expands dramatically and the scoring function must balance protein–protein and protein–ligand contributions. Here, we investigate an efficient multistage backbone reconstruction algorithm for large loop regions in the receptor and demonstrate that treatment of backbone receptor flexibility significantly improves binding mode prediction starting from apo structures and in cross docking simulations. For three different kinase receptors in which large flexible loops reconstruct upon ligand binding, we demonstrate that treatment of backbone flexibility results in accurate models of the complexes in simulations starting from the apo structure. At the example of the DFG‐motif in the p38 kinase, we also show how loop reconstruction can be used to model allosteric binding. Our approach thus paves the way to treat the complex process of receptor reconstruction upon ligand binding in docking simulations and may help to design new ligands with high specificity by exploitation of allosteric mechanisms. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Incorporating specificity into optimization: evaluation of SPA using CSAR 2014 and CASF 2013 benchmarks

Scoring functions of protein–ligand interactions are widely used in computationally docking software and structure-based drug discovery. Accurate prediction of the binding energy between the protein and the ligand is the main task of the scoring function. The accuracy of a scoring function is normally evaluated by testing it on the benchmarks of protein–ligand complexes. In this work, we report the evaluation analysis of an improved version of scoring function SPecificity and Affinity (SPA). By testing on two independent benchmarks Community Structure-Activity Resource (CSAR) 2014 and Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions (CASF) 2013, the assessment shows that SPA is relatively more accurate than other compared scoring functions in predicting the interactions between the protein and the ligand. We conclude that the inclusion of the specificity in the optimization can effectively suppress the competitive state on the funnel-like binding energy landscape, and make SPA more accurate in identifying the “native” conformation and scoring the binding decoys. The evaluation of SPA highlights the importance of binding specificity in improving the accuracy of the scoring functions.     

Effect of ligand volume correction on PMF scoring

Recently, a knowledge‐based scoring function has been introduced that estimates the protein‐binding affinity based on the 3D structure of a protein–ligand complex (J Med Chem 1999, 42, 791). A ligand volume correction factor has been proposed and applied to filter out intraligand interactions in this simplified potential approach. Here we evaluate the effect of the ligand volume correction on the predictive power of the PMF scoring function. It is found that the effect of the ligand volume correction is significant on the derived potentials and large on the overall score. However, the effect of the ligand correction on the predictive power of the scoring function appears to be smaller. For a test set containing serine proteases the predictive power of the PMF scoring function does not change with the introduction of the volume correction. For a test set of metalloprotease complexes, the predictive power of the PMF scoring function improves only slightly when the volume correction is applied. For five test sets comprising a total of 225 diverse protein ligand complexes taken from the Brookhaven Protein Data Bank it is found, however, that the introduction of the ligand volume correction consistently improves the correlation between the PMF scores and the measured binding affinities. The effect of the correction factor on docking/scoring experiments is also analyzed using a test set of 61 biphenyl inhibitor‐stromelysin complexes. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Comput Chem 22: 418–425, 2001     

Exponential repulsion improves structural predictability of molecular docking

Molecular docking is a powerful tool for theoretical prediction of the preferred conformation and orientation of small molecules within protein active sites. The obtained poses can be used for estimation of binding energies, which indicate the inhibition effect of designed inhibitors, and therefore might be used for in silico drug design. However, the evaluation of ligand binding affinity critically depends on successful prediction of the native binding mode. Contemporary docking methods are often based on scoring functions derived from molecular mechanical potentials. In such potentials, nonbonded interactions are typically represented by electrostatic interactions between atom‐centered partial charges and standard 6–12 Lennard–Jones potential. Here, we present implementation and testing of a scoring function based on more physically justified exponential repulsion instead of the standard Lennard–Jones potential. We found that this scoring function significantly improved prediction of the native binding modes in proteins bearing narrow active sites such as serine proteases and kinases. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Assessing protein–ligand docking for the binding of organometallic compounds to proteins

Organometallic compounds are increasingly used as molecular scaffolds in drug development projects; their structural and electronic properties offering novel opportunities in protein–ligand complementarities. Interestingly, while protein–ligand dockings have long become a spearhead in computer assisted drug design, no benchmarking nor optimization have been done for their use with organometallic compounds. Pursuing our efforts to model metal mediated recognition processes, we herein present a systematic study of the capabilities of the program GOLD to predict the interactions of protein with organometallic compounds. The study focuses on inert systems for which no alteration of the first coordination sphere of the metal occurs upon binding. Several scaffolds are used as test systems with different docking schemes and scoring functions. We conclude that ChemScore is the most robust scoring function with ASP and ChemPLP providing with good results too and GoldScore slightly underperforming. This study shows that current state‐of‐the‐art protein‐ligand docking techniques are reliable for the docking of inert organometallic compounds binding to protein. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Prediction of the interaction of metallic moieties with proteins: An update for protein‐ligand docking techniques

In this article, we present a new approach to expand the range of application of protein‐ligand docking methods in the prediction of the interaction of coordination complexes (i.e., metallodrugs, natural and artificial cofactors, etc.) with proteins. To do so, we assume that, from a pure computational point of view, hydrogen bond functions could be an adequate model for the coordination bonds as both share directionality and polarity aspects. In this model, docking of metalloligands can be performed without using any geometrical constraints or energy restraints. The hard work consists in generating the convenient atom types and scoring functions. To test this approach, we applied our model to 39 high‐quality X‐ray structures with transition and main group metal complexes bound via a unique coordination bond to a protein. This concept was implemented in the protein‐ligand docking program GOLD. The results are in very good agreement with the experimental structures: the percentage for which the RMSD of the simulated pose is smaller than the X‐ray spectra resolution is 92.3% and the mean value of RMSD is < 1.0 Å. Such results also show the viability of the method to predict metal complexes–proteins interactions when the X‐ray structure is not available. This work could be the first step for novel applicability of docking techniques in medicinal and bioinorganic chemistry and appears generalizable enough to be implemented in most protein‐ligand docking programs nowadays available. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

Evaluation of a knowledge‐based potential of mean force for scoring docked protein–ligand complexes

The Biomolecular Ligand Energy Evaluation Protocol (BLEEP) is a knowledge‐based potential derived from high‐resolution X‐ray structures of protein–ligand complexes. The performance of this potential in ranking the hypothetical structures resulting from a docking study has been evaluated using fifteen protein–ligand complexes from the Protein Data Bank. In the majority of complexes BLEEP was successful in identifying the native (experimental) binding mode or an alternative of low rms deviation (from the native) as the lowest in energy. Overall BLEEP is slightly better than the DOCK energy function in discriminating native‐like modes. Even when alternative binding modes rank lower than the native structure, a reasonable energy is assigned to the latter. Breaking down the BLEEP scores into the atom–atom contributions reveals that this type of potential is grossly dominated by longer range interactions (>5 Å), which makes it relatively insensitive to small local variations in the binding site. However, despite this limitation, the lack, at present, of accurate protein–ligand potentials means that BLEEP is a promising approach to improve the filtering of structures resulting from docking programs. Moreover, BLEEP should improve with the continuously increasing number of complexes available in the PDB. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Comput Chem 22: 673–688, 2001     

Ligand-specific scoring functions: improved ranking of docking solutions

Molecular docking is a powerful computational method that has been widely used in many biomolecular studies to predict geometry of a protein-ligand complex. However, while its conformational search algorithms are usually able to generate correct conformation of a ligand in the binding site, the scoring methods often fail to discriminate it among many false variants. We propose to treat this problem by applying more precise ligand-specific scoring filters to re-rank docking solutions. In this way specific features of interactions between protein and different types of compounds can be implicitly taken into account. New scoring functions were constructed including hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic and hydrophilic complementarity terms. These scoring functions also discriminate ligands by the size of the molecule, the total hydrophobicity, and the number of peptide bonds for peptide ligands. Weighting coefficients of the scoring functions were adjusted using a training set of 60 protein-ligand complexes. The proposed method was then tested on the results of docking obtained for an additional 70 complexes. In both cases the success rate was 5-8% better compared to the standard functions implemented in popular docking software.     

Fast and accurate predictions of binding free energies using MM‐PBSA and MM‐GBSA

In the drug discovery process, accurate methods of computing the affinity of small molecules with a biological target are strongly needed. This is particularly true for molecular docking and virtual screening methods, which use approximated scoring functions and struggle in estimating binding energies in correlation with experimental values. Among the various methods, MM‐PBSA and MM‐GBSA are emerging as useful and effective approaches. Although these methods are typically applied to large collections of equilibrated structures of protein‐ligand complexes sampled during molecular dynamics in water, the possibility to reliably estimate ligand affinity using a single energy‐minimized structure and implicit solvation models has not been explored in sufficient detail. Herein, we thoroughly investigate this hypothesis by comparing different methods for the generation of protein‐ligand complexes and diverse methods for free energy prediction for their ability to correlate with experimental values. The methods were tested on a series of structurally diverse inhibitors of Plasmodium falciparum DHFR with known binding mode and measured affinities. The results showed that correlations between MM‐PBSA or MM‐GBSA binding free energies with experimental affinities were in most cases excellent. Importantly, we found that correlations obtained with the use of a single protein‐ligand minimized structure and with implicit solvation models were similar to those obtained after averaging over multiple MD snapshots with explicit water molecules, with consequent save of computing time without loss of accuracy. When applied to a virtual screening experiment, such an approach proved to discriminate between true binders and decoy molecules and yielded significantly better enrichment curves. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem, 2010     

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

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

Q‐DockLHM: Low‐resolution refinement for ligand comparative modeling

The success of ligand docking calculations typically depends on the quality of the receptor structure. Given improvements in protein structure prediction approaches, approximate protein models now can be routinely obtained for the majority of gene products in a given proteome. Structure‐based virtual screening of large combinatorial libraries of lead candidates against theoretically modeled receptor structures requires fast and reliable docking techniques capable of dealing with structural inaccuracies in protein models. Here, we present Q‐Dock^LHM, a method for low‐resolution refinement of binding poses provided by FINDSITE^LHM, a ligand homology modeling approach. We compare its performance to that of classical ligand docking approaches in ligand docking against a representative set of experimental (both holo and apo) as well as theoretically modeled receptor structures. Docking benchmarks reveal that unlike all‐atom docking, Q‐Dock^LHM exhibits the desired tolerance to the receptor's structure deformation. Our results suggest that the use of an evolution‐based approach to ligand homology modeling followed by fast low‐resolution refinement is capable of achieving satisfactory performance in ligand‐binding pose prediction with promising applicability to proteome‐scale applications. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem, 2010     

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.     

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.     

Statistical potential for modeling and ranking of protein-ligand interactions

Applications in structural biology and medicinal chemistry require protein-ligand scoring functions for two distinct tasks: (i) ranking different poses of a small molecule in a protein binding site and (ii) ranking different small molecules by their complementarity to a protein site. Using probability theory, we developed two atomic distance-dependent statistical scoring functions: PoseScore was optimized for recognizing native binding geometries of ligands from other poses and RankScore was optimized for distinguishing ligands from nonbinding molecules. Both scores are based on a set of 8,885 crystallographic structures of protein-ligand complexes but differ in the values of three key parameters. Factors influencing the accuracy of scoring were investigated, including the maximal atomic distance and non-native ligand geometries used for scoring, as well as the use of protein models instead of crystallographic structures for training and testing the scoring function. For the test set of 19 targets, RankScore improved the ligand enrichment (logAUC) and early enrichment (EF(1)) scores computed by DOCK 3.6 for 13 and 14 targets, respectively. In addition, RankScore performed better at rescoring than each of seven other scoring functions tested. Accepting both the crystal structure and decoy geometries with all-atom root-mean-square errors of up to 2 ? from the crystal structure as correct binding poses, PoseScore gave the best score to a correct binding pose among 100 decoys for 88% of all cases in a benchmark set containing 100 protein-ligand complexes. PoseScore accuracy is comparable to that of DrugScore(CSD) and ITScore/SE and superior to 12 other tested scoring functions. Therefore, RankScore can facilitate ligand discovery, by ranking complexes of the target with different small molecules; PoseScore can be used for protein-ligand complex structure prediction, by ranking different conformations of a given protein-ligand pair. The statistical potentials are available through the Integrative Modeling Platform (IMP) software package (http://salilab.org/imp) and the LigScore Web server (http://salilab.org/ligscore/).