Predicting Ligand Binding Modes from Neural Networks Trained on Protein–Ligand Interaction Fingerprints

2013 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 763-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Chupakhin ◽  
Gilles Marcou ◽  
Igor Baskin ◽  
Alexandre Varnek ◽  
Didier Rognan
Author(s):  
Lennart Gundelach ◽  
Christofer S Tautermann ◽  
Thomas Fox ◽  
Chris-Kriton Skylaris

The accurate prediction of protein-ligand binding free energies with tractable computational methods has the potential to revolutionize drug discovery. Modeling the protein-ligand interaction at a quantum mechanical level, instead of...


Author(s):  
Susan Leung ◽  
Michael Bodkin ◽  
Frank von Delft ◽  
Paul Brennan ◽  
Garrett Morris

One of the fundamental assumptions of fragment-based drug discovery is that the fragment’s binding mode will be conserved upon elaboration into larger compounds. The most common way of quantifying binding mode similarity is Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD), but Protein Ligand Interaction Fingerprint (PLIF) similarity and shape-based metrics are sometimes used. We introduce SuCOS, an open-source shape and chemical feature overlap metric. We explore the strengths and weaknesses of RMSD, PLIF similarity, and SuCOS on a dataset of X-ray crystal structures of paired elaborated larger and smaller molecules bound to the same protein. Our redocking and cross-docking studies show that SuCOS is superior to RMSD and PLIF similarity. When redocking, SuCOS produces fewer false positives and false negatives than RMSD and PLIF similarity; and in cross-docking, SuCOS is better at differentiating experimentally-observed binding modes of an elaborated molecule given the pose of its non-elaborated counterpart. Finally we show that SuCOS performs better than AutoDock Vina at differentiating actives from decoy ligands using the DUD-E dataset. SuCOS is available at https://github.com/susanhleung/SuCOS . <br>


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Leung ◽  
Michael Bodkin ◽  
Frank von Delft ◽  
Paul Brennan ◽  
Garrett Morris

One of the fundamental assumptions of fragment-based drug discovery is that the fragment’s binding mode will be conserved upon elaboration into larger compounds. The most common way of quantifying binding mode similarity is Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD), but Protein Ligand Interaction Fingerprint (PLIF) similarity and shape-based metrics are sometimes used. We introduce SuCOS, an open-source shape and chemical feature overlap metric. We explore the strengths and weaknesses of RMSD, PLIF similarity, and SuCOS on a dataset of X-ray crystal structures of paired elaborated larger and smaller molecules bound to the same protein. Our redocking and cross-docking studies show that SuCOS is superior to RMSD and PLIF similarity. When redocking, SuCOS produces fewer false positives and false negatives than RMSD and PLIF similarity; and in cross-docking, SuCOS is better at differentiating experimentally-observed binding modes of an elaborated molecule given the pose of its non-elaborated counterpart. Finally we show that SuCOS performs better than AutoDock Vina at differentiating actives from decoy ligands using the DUD-E dataset. SuCOS is available at https://github.com/susanhleung/SuCOS . <br>


Biomolecules ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Prieto-Martínez ◽  
José Medina-Franco

Flavonoids are widely recognized as natural polydrugs, given their anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, sedative, and antineoplastic activities. Recently, different studies showed that flavonoids have the potential to inhibit bromodomain and extraterminal (BET) bromodomains. Previous reports suggested that flavonoids bind between the Z and A loops of the bromodomain (ZA channel) due to their orientation and interactions with P86, V87, L92, L94, and N140. Herein, a comprehensive characterization of the binding modes of fisetin and the biflavonoid, amentoflavone, is discussed. To this end, both compounds were docked with BET bromodomain 4 (BRD4) using four docking programs. The results were post-processed with protein–ligand interaction fingerprints. To gain further insight into the binding mode of the two natural products, the docking results were further analyzed with molecular dynamics simulations. The results showed that amentoflavone makes numerous contacts in the ZA channel, as previously described for flavonoids and kinase inhibitors. It was also found that amentoflavone can potentially make contacts with non-canonical residues for BET inhibition. Most of these contacts were not observed with fisetin. Based on these results, amentoflavone was experimentally tested for BRD4 inhibition, showing activity in the micromolar range. This work may serve as the basis for scaffold optimization and the further characterization of flavonoids as BET inhibitors.


2017 ◽  
pp. 1072-1091
Author(s):  
Ali HajiEbrahimi ◽  
Hamidreza Ghafouri ◽  
Mohsen Ranjbar ◽  
Amirhossein Sakhteman

A most challenging part in docking-based virtual screening is the scoring functions implemented in various docking programs in order to evaluate different poses of the ligands inside the binding cavity of the receptor. Precise and trustable measurement of ligand-protein affinity for Structure-Based Virtual Screening (SB-VS) is therefore, an outstanding problem in docking studies. Empirical post-docking filters can be helpful as a way to provide various types of structure-activity information. Different types of interaction have been presented between the ligands and the receptor so far. Based on the diversity and importance of PLIF methods, this chapter will focus on the comparison of different protocols. The advantages and disadvantages of all methods will be discussed explicitly in this chapter as well as future sights for further progress in this field. Different classifications approaches for the protein-ligand interaction fingerprints were also discussed in this chapter.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duo Zhang ◽  
Shuheng Huang ◽  
Hu Mei ◽  
MuliadiYeremia Kevin ◽  
Tingting Shi ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oscar Méndez-Lucio ◽  
Albert J. Kooistra ◽  
Chris de Graaf ◽  
Andreas Bender ◽  
José L. Medina-Franco

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document