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.     

Combining in silico and in cerebro approaches for virtual screening and pose prediction in SAMPL4

The SAMPL challenges provide an ideal opportunity for unbiased evaluation and comparison of different approaches used in computational drug design. During the fourth round of this SAMPL challenge, we participated in the virtual screening and binding pose prediction on inhibitors targeting the HIV-1 integrase enzyme. For virtual screening, we used well known and widely used in silico methods combined with personal in cerebro insights and experience. Regular docking only performed slightly better than random selection, but the performance was significantly improved upon incorporation of additional filters based on pharmacophore queries and electrostatic similarities. The best performance was achieved when logical selection was added. For the pose prediction, we utilized a similar consensus approach that amalgamated the results of the Glide-XP docking with structural knowledge and rescoring. The pose prediction results revealed that docking displayed reasonable performance in predicting the binding poses. However, prediction performance can be improved utilizing scientific experience and rescoring approaches. In both the virtual screening and pose prediction challenges, the top performance was achieved by our approaches. Here we describe the methods and strategies used in our approaches and discuss the rationale of their performances.     

Pose prediction and virtual screening performance of GOLD scoring functions in a standardized test

The performance of all four GOLD scoring functions has been evaluated for pose prediction and virtual screening under the standardized conditions of the comparative docking and scoring experiment reported in this Edition. Excellent pose prediction and good virtual screening performance was demonstrated using unmodified protein models and default parameter settings. The best performing scoring function for both pose prediction and virtual screening was demonstrated to be the recently introduced scoring function ChemPLP. We conclude that existing docking programs already perform close to optimally in the cognate pose prediction experiments currently carried out and that more stringent pose prediction tests should be used in the future. These should employ cross-docking sets. Evaluation of virtual screening performance remains problematic and much remains to be done to improve the usefulness of publically available active and decoy sets for virtual screening. Finally we suggest that, for certain target/scoring function combinations, good enrichment may sometimes be a consequence of 2D property recognition rather than a modelling of the correct 3D interactions.     

Potential and limitations of ensemble docking

A major problem in structure-based virtual screening applications is the appropriate selection of a single or even multiple protein structures to be used in the virtual screening process. A priori it is unknown which protein structure(s) will perform best in a virtual screening experiment. We investigated the performance of ensemble docking, as a function of ensemble size, for eight targets of pharmaceutical interest. Starting from single protein structure docking results, for each ensemble size up to 500,000 combinations of protein structures were generated, and, for each ensemble, pose prediction and virtual screening results were derived. Comparison of single to multiple protein structure results suggests improvements when looking at the performance of the worst and the average over all single protein structures to the performance of the worst and average over all protein ensembles of size two or greater, respectively. We identified several key factors affecting ensemble docking performance, including the sampling accuracy of the docking algorithm, the choice of the scoring function, and the similarity of database ligands to the cocrystallized ligands of ligand-bound protein structures in an ensemble. Due to these factors, the prospective selection of optimum ensembles is a challenging task, shown by a reassessment of published ensemble selection protocols.     

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.     

Lessons learned in induced fit docking and metadynamics in the Drug Design Data Resource Grand Challenge 2

Two of the major ongoing challenges in computational drug discovery are predicting the binding pose and affinity of a compound to a protein. The Drug Design Data Resource Grand Challenge 2 was developed to address these problems and to drive development of new methods. The challenge provided the 2D structures of compounds for which the organizers help blinded data in the form of 35 X-ray crystal structures and 102 binding affinity measurements and challenged participants to predict the binding pose and affinity of the compounds. We tested a number of pose prediction methods as part of the challenge; we found that docking methods that incorporate protein flexibility (Induced Fit Docking) outperformed methods that treated the protein as rigid. We also found that using binding pose metadynamics, a molecular dynamics based method, to score docked poses provided the best predictions of our methods with an average RMSD of 2.01 Å. We tested both structure-based (e.g. docking) and ligand-based methods (e.g. QSAR) in the affinity prediction portion of the competition. We found that our structure-based methods based on docking with Smina (Spearman ρ?=?0.614), performed slightly better than our ligand-based methods (ρ?=?0.543), and had equivalent performance with the other top methods in the competition. Despite the overall good performance of our methods in comparison to other participants in the challenge, there exists significant room for improvement especially in cases such as these where protein flexibility plays such a large role.     

SAMPL4 & DOCK3.7: lessons for automated docking procedures

The SAMPL4 challenges were used to test current automated methods for solvation energy, virtual screening, pose and affinity prediction of the molecular docking pipeline DOCK 3.7. Additionally, first-order models of binding affinity were proposed as milestones for any method predicting binding affinity. Several important discoveries about the molecular docking software were made during the challenge: (1) Solvation energies of ligands were five-fold worse than any other method used in SAMPL4, including methods that were similarly fast, (2) HIV Integrase is a challenging target, but automated docking on the correct allosteric site performed well in terms of virtual screening and pose prediction (compared to other methods) but affinity prediction, as expected, was very poor, (3) Molecular docking grid sizes can be very important, serious errors were discovered with default settings that have been adjusted for all future work. Overall, lessons from SAMPL4 suggest many changes to molecular docking tools, not just DOCK 3.7, that could improve the state of the art. Future difficulties and projects will be discussed.     

Ligand-based virtual screening by novelty detection with self-organizing maps

We describe a novel method for ligand-based virtual screening, based on utilizing Self-Organizing Maps (SOM) as a novelty detection device. Novelty detection (or one-class classification) refers to the attempt of identifying patterns that do not belong to the space covered by a given data set. In ligand-based virtual screening, chemical structures perceived as novel lie outside the known activity space and can therefore be discarded from further investigation. In this context, the concept of "novel structure" refers to a compound, which is unlikely to share the activity of the query structures. Compounds not perceived as "novel" are suspected to share the activity of the query structures. Nowadays, various databases contain active structures but access to compounds which have been found to be inactive in a biological assay is limited. This work addresses this problem via novelty detection, which does not require proven inactive compounds. The structures are described by spatial autocorrelation functions weighted by atomic physicochemical properties. Different methods for selecting a subset of targets from a larger set are discussed. A comparison with similarity search based on Daylight fingerprints followed by data fusion is presented. The two methods complement each other to a large extent. In a retrospective screening of the WOMBAT database novelty detection with SOM gave enrichment factors between 105 and 462-an improvement over the similarity search based on Daylight fingerprints between 25% and 100%, when the 100 top ranked structures were considered. Novelty detection with SOM is applicable (1) to improve the retrieval of potentially active compounds also in concert with other virtual screening methods; (2) as a library design tool for discarding a large number of compounds, which are unlikely to possess a given biological activity; and (3) for selecting a small number of potentially active compounds from a large data set.     

Comprehensive comparison of ligand-based virtual screening tools against the DUD data set reveals limitations of current 3D methods

In recent years, many virtual screening (VS) tools have been developed that employ different molecular representations and have different speed and accuracy characteristics. In this paper, we compare ten popular ligand-based VS tools using the publicly available Directory of Useful Decoys (DUD) data set comprising over 100?000 compounds distributed across 40 protein targets. The DUD was developed initially to evaluate docking algorithms, but our results from an operational correlation analysis show that it is also well suited for comparing ligand-based VS tools. Although it is conventional wisdom that 3D molecular shape is an important determinant of biological activity, our results based on permutational significance tests of several commonly used VS metrics show that the 2D fingerprint-based methods generally give better VS performance than the 3D shape-based approaches for surprisingly many of the DUD targets. To help understand this finding, we have analyzed the nature of the scoring functions used and the composition of the DUD data set itself. We propose that to improve the VS performance of current 3D methods, it will be necessary to devise screening queries that can represent multiple possible conformations and which can exploit knowledge of known actives that span multiple scaffold families.     

Comparison of ligand-based and receptor-based virtual screening of HIV entry inhibitors for the CXCR4 and CCR5 receptors using 3D ligand shape matching and ligand-receptor docking

HIV infection is initiated by fusion of the virus with the target cell through binding of the viral gp120 protein with the CD4 cell surface receptor protein and the CXCR4 or CCR5 co-receptors. There is currently considerable interest in developing novel ligands that can modulate the conformations of these co-receptors and, hence, ultimately block virus-cell fusion. This article describes a detailed comparison of the performance of receptor-based and ligand-based virtual screening approaches to find CXCR4 and CCR5 antagonists that could potentially serve as HIV entry inhibitors. Because no crystal structures for these proteins are available, homology models of CXCR4 and CCR5 have been built, using bovine rhodopsin as the template. For ligand-based virtual screening, several shape-based and property-based molecular comparison approaches have been compared, using high-affinity ligands as query molecules. These methods were compared by virtually screening a library assembled by us, consisting of 602 known CXCR4 and CCR5 inhibitors and some 4700 similar presumed inactive molecules. For each receptor, the library was queried using known binders, and the enrichment factors and diversity of the resulting virtual hit lists were analyzed. Overall, ligand-based shape-matching searches yielded higher enrichments than receptor-based docking, especially for CXCR4. The results obtained for CCR5 suggest the possibility that different active scaffolds bind in different ways within the CCR5 pocket.     

Virtual screening methods that complement HTS

In this review, we discuss a number of computational methods that have been developed or adapted for molecule classification and virtual screening (VS) of compound databases. In particular, we focus on approaches that are complementary to high-throughput screening (HTS). The discussion is limited to VS methods that operate at the small molecular level, which is often called ligand-based VS (LBVS), and does not take into account docking algorithms or other structure-based screening tools. We describe areas that greatly benefit from combining virtual and biological screening and discuss computational methods that are most suitable to contribute to the integration of screening technologies. Relevant approaches range from established methods such as clustering or similarity searching to techniques that have only recently been introduced for LBVS applications such as statistical methods or support vector machines. Finally, we discuss a number of representative applications at the interface between VS and HTS.     

Structural biology, protein conformations and drug designing

Structure based drug designing is now a popular technique used for increasing the speed of drug designing process. This was made possible by the availability of many protein structures which helped in developing tools to understand the structure function relationships, automated docking and virtual screening. Knowledge of structure based functional properties of a drug target is very essential for a successful in silico designing of drugs. However, some problems associated with the structure determination process and lack of knowledge of conformational freedom associated with available protein structures are the hurdles involved in structure based drug designing. Docking and virtual screening processes depend on the active site structure of the receptor molecule and subtle differences in the conformations of these molecules due to flexibility pose a serious threat to the drug designing process. In this review problems associated with the conformations of proteins and homology models was reviewed.     

Cheminformatics meets molecular mechanics: a combined application of knowledge-based pose scoring and physical force field-based hit scoring functions improves the accuracy of structure-based virtual screening

Poor performance of scoring functions is a well-known bottleneck in structure-based virtual screening (VS), which is most frequently manifested in the scoring functions' inability to discriminate between true ligands vs known nonbinders (therefore designated as binding decoys). This deficiency leads to a large number of false positive hits resulting from VS. We have hypothesized that filtering out or penalizing docking poses recognized as non-native (i.e., pose decoys) should improve the performance of VS in terms of improved identification of true binders. Using several concepts from the field of cheminformatics, we have developed a novel approach to identifying pose decoys from an ensemble of poses generated by computational docking procedures. We demonstrate that the use of target-specific pose (scoring) filter in combination with a physical force field-based scoring function (MedusaScore) leads to significant improvement of hit rates in VS studies for 12 of the 13 benchmark sets from the clustered version of the Database of Useful Decoys (DUD). This new hybrid scoring function outperforms several conventional structure-based scoring functions, including XSCORE::HMSCORE, ChemScore, PLP, and Chemgauss3, in 6 out of 13 data sets at early stage of VS (up 1% decoys of the screening database). We compare our hybrid method with several novel VS methods that were recently reported to have good performances on the same DUD data sets. We find that the retrieved ligands using our method are chemically more diverse in comparison with two ligand-based methods (FieldScreen and FLAP::LBX). We also compare our method with FLAP::RBLB, a high-performance VS method that also utilizes both the receptor and the cognate ligand structures. Interestingly, we find that the top ligands retrieved using our method are highly complementary to those retrieved using FLAP::RBLB, hinting effective directions for best VS applications. We suggest that this integrative VS approach combining cheminformatics and molecular mechanics methodologies may be applied to a broad variety of protein targets to improve the outcome of structure-based drug discovery studies.     

SHAFTS: a hybrid approach for 3D molecular similarity calculation. 1. Method and assessment of virtual screening

We developed a novel approach called SHAFTS (SHApe-FeaTure Similarity) for 3D molecular similarity calculation and ligand-based virtual screening. SHAFTS adopts a hybrid similarity metric combined with molecular shape and colored (labeled) chemistry groups annotated by pharmacophore features for 3D similarity calculation and ranking, which is designed to integrate the strength of pharmacophore matching and volumetric overlay approaches. A feature triplet hashing method is used for fast molecular alignment poses enumeration, and the optimal superposition between the target and the query molecules can be prioritized by calculating corresponding "hybrid similarities". SHAFTS is suitable for large-scale virtual screening with single or multiple bioactive compounds as the query "templates" regardless of whether corresponding experimentally determined conformations are available. Two public test sets (DUD and Jain's sets) including active and decoy molecules from a panel of useful drug targets were adopted to evaluate the virtual screening performance. SHAFTS outperformed several other widely used virtual screening methods in terms of enrichment of known active compounds as well as novel chemotypes, thereby indicating its robustness in hit compounds identification and potential of scaffold hopping in virtual screening.     

Computation of 3D queries for ROCS based virtual screens

Rapid overlay of chemical structures (ROCS) is a method that aligns molecules based on shape and/or chemical similarity. It is often used in 3D ligand-based virtual screening. Given a query consisting of a single conformation of an active molecule ROCS can generate highly enriched hit lists. Typically the chosen query conformation is a minimum energy structure. Can better enrichment be obtained using conformations other than the minimum energy structure? To answer this question a methodology has been developed called CORAL (COnformational analysis, Rocs ALignment). For a given set of molecule conformations it computes optimized conformations for ROCS screening. It does so by clustering all conformations of a chosen molecule set using pairwise ROCS combo scores. The best representative conformation is that which has the highest average overlap with the rest of the conformations in the cluster. It is these best representative conformations that are then used for virtual screening. CORAL was tested by performing virtual screening experiments with the 40 DUD (Directory of Useful Decoys) data sets. Both CORAL and minimum energy queries were used. The recognition capability of each query was quantified as the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Results show that the CORAL AUC values are on average larger than the minimum energy AUC values. This demonstrates that one can indeed obtain better ROCS enrichments with conformations other than the minimum energy structure. As a result, CORAL analysis can be a valuable first step in virtual screening workflows using ROCS.     

Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening

Virtual screening benchmarking studies were carried out on 11 targets to evaluate the performance of three commonly used approaches: 2D ligand similarity (Daylight, TOPOSIM), 3D ligand similarity (SQW, ROCS), and protein structure-based docking (FLOG, FRED, Glide). Active and decoy compound sets were assembled from both the MDDR and the Merck compound databases. Averaged over multiple targets, ligand-based methods outperformed docking algorithms. This was true for 3D ligand-based methods only when chemical typing was included. Using mean enrichment factor as a performance metric, Glide appears to be the best docking method among the three with FRED a close second. Results for all virtual screening methods are database dependent and can vary greatly for particular targets.     

Performance evaluation of 2D fingerprint and 3D shape similarity methods in virtual screening

Virtual screening (VS) can be accomplished in either ligand- or structure-based methods. In recent times, an increasing number of 2D fingerprint and 3D shape similarity methods have been used in ligand-based VS. To evaluate the performance of these ligand-based methods, retrospective VS was performed on a tailored directory of useful decoys (DUD). The VS performances of 14 2D fingerprints and four 3D shape similarity methods were compared. The results revealed that 2D fingerprints ECFP_2 and FCFP_4 yielded better performance than the 3D Phase Shape methods. These ligand-based methods were also compared with structure-based methods, such as Glide docking and Prime molecular mechanics generalized Born surface area rescoring, which demonstrated that both 2D fingerprint and 3D shape similarity methods could yield higher enrichment during early retrieval of active compounds. The results demonstrated the superiority of ligand-based methods over the docking-based screening in terms of both speed and hit enrichment. Therefore, considering ligand-based methods first in any VS workflow would be a wise option.