Dataset Information

Is It Reliable to Use Common Molecular Docking Methods for Comparing the Binding Affinities of Enantiomer Pairs for Their Protein Target?

ABSTRACT: Molecular docking is a computational chemistry method which has become essential for the rational drug design process. In this context, it has had great impact as a successful tool for the study of ligand-receptor interaction modes, and for the exploration of large chemical datasets through virtual screening experiments. Despite their unquestionable merits, docking methods are not reliable for predicting binding energies due to the simple scoring functions they use. However, comparisons between two or three complexes using the predicted binding energies as a criterion are commonly found in the literature. In the present work we tested how wise is it to trust the docking energies when two complexes between a target protein and enantiomer pairs are compared. For this purpose, a ligand library composed by 141 enantiomeric pairs was used, including compounds with biological activities reported against seven protein targets. Docking results using the software Glide (considering extra precision (XP), standard precision (SP), and high-throughput virtual screening (HTVS) modes) and AutoDock Vina were compared with the reported biological activities using a classification scheme. Our test failed for all modes and targets, demonstrating that an accurate prediction when binding energies of enantiomers are compared using docking may be due to chance. We also compared pairs of compounds with different molecular weights and found the same results.

SUBMITTER: Ramirez D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4848981 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is It Reliable to Use Common Molecular Docking Methods for Comparing the Binding Affinities of Enantiomer Pairs for Their Protein Target?

Ramírez David D Caballero Julio J

International journal of molecular sciences 20160420 4

Molecular docking is a computational chemistry method which has become essential for the rational drug design process. In this context, it has had great impact as a successful tool for the study of ligand-receptor interaction modes, and for the exploration of large chemical datasets through virtual screening experiments. Despite their unquestionable merits, docking methods are not reliable for predicting binding energies due to the simple scoring functions they use. However, comparisons between ...[more]

PMID: 27104528

Similar Datasets

Project description:A growing number of computational tools have been developed to accurately and rapidly predict the impact of amino acid mutations on protein-protein relative binding affinities. Such tools have many applications, for example, designing new drugs and studying evolutionary mechanisms. In the search for accuracy, many of these methods employ expensive yet rigorous molecular dynamics simulations. By contrast, non-rigorous methods use less exhaustive statistical mechanics, allowing for more efficient calculations. However, it is unclear if such methods retain enough accuracy to replace rigorous methods in binding affinity calculations. This trade-off between accuracy and computational expense makes it difficult to determine the best method for a particular system or study. Here, eight non-rigorous computational methods were assessed using eight antibody-antigen and eight non-antibody-antigen complexes for their ability to accurately predict relative binding affinities (ΔΔG) for 654 single mutations. In addition to assessing accuracy, we analyzed the CPU cost and performance for each method using a variety of physico-chemical structural features. This allowed us to posit scenarios in which each method may be best utilized. Most methods performed worse when applied to antibody-antigen complexes compared to non-antibody-antigen complexes. Rosetta-based JayZ and EasyE methods classified mutations as destabilizing (ΔΔG < -0.5 kcal/mol) with high (83-98%) accuracy and a relatively low computational cost for non-antibody-antigen complexes. Some of the most accurate results for antibody-antigen systems came from combining molecular dynamics with FoldX with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.46, but this was also the most computationally expensive method. Overall, our results suggest these methods can be used to quickly and accurately predict stabilizing versus destabilizing mutations but are less accurate at predicting actual binding affinities. This study highlights the need for continued development of reliable, accessible, and reproducible methods for predicting binding affinities in antibody-antigen proteins and provides a recipe for using current methods.

Project description:BackgroundThe binding of peptide fragments of antigens to class II MHC is a crucial step in initiating a helper T cell immune response. The identification of such peptide epitopes has potential applications in vaccine design and in better understanding autoimmune diseases and allergies. However, comprehensive experimental determination of peptide-MHC binding affinities is infeasible due to MHC diversity and the large number of possible peptide sequences. Computational methods trained on the limited experimental binding data can address this challenge. We present the MultiRTA method, an extension of our previous single-type RTA prediction method, which allows the prediction of peptide binding affinities for multiple MHC allotypes not used to train the model. Thus predictions can be made for many MHC allotypes for which experimental binding data is unavailable.ResultsWe fit MultiRTA models for both HLA-DR and HLA-DP using large experimental binding data sets. The performance in predicting binding affinities for novel MHC allotypes, not in the training set, was tested in two different ways. First, we performed leave-one-allele-out cross-validation, in which predictions are made for one allotype using a model fit to binding data for the remaining MHC allotypes. Comparison of the HLA-DR results with those of two other prediction methods applied to the same data sets showed that MultiRTA achieved performance comparable to NetMHCIIpan and better than the earlier TEPITOPE method. We also directly tested model transferability by making leave-one-allele-out predictions for additional experimentally characterized sets of overlapping peptide epitopes binding to multiple MHC allotypes. In addition, we determined the applicability of prediction methods like MultiRTA to other MHC allotypes by examining the degree of MHC variation accounted for in the training set. An examination of predictions for the promiscuous binding CLIP peptide revealed variations in binding affinity among alleles as well as potentially distinct binding registers for HLA-DR and HLA-DP. Finally, we analyzed the optimal MultiRTA parameters to discover the most important peptide residues for promiscuous and allele-specific binding to HLA-DR and HLA-DP allotypes.ConclusionsThe MultiRTA method yields competitive performance but with a significantly simpler and physically interpretable model compared with previous prediction methods. A MultiRTA prediction webserver is available at http://bordnerlab.org/MultiRTA.

Project description:The prediction of biological targets of bioactive molecules from machine-readable materials can be routinely performed by computational target prediction tools (CTPTs). However, the prediction of biological targets of bioactive molecules from non-digital materials (e.g., printed or handwritten documents) has not been possible due to the complex nature of bioactive molecules and impossibility of employing computations. Improving the target prediction accuracy is the most important challenge for computational target prediction. A minimum structure is identified for each group of neighbor molecules in the proposed method. Each group of neighbor molecules represents a distinct structural class of molecules with the same function in relation to the target. The minimum structure is employed as a query to search for molecules that perfectly satisfy the minimum structure of what is guessed crucial for the targeted activity. The proposed method is based on chemical similarity, but only molecules that perfectly satisfy the minimum structure are considered. Structurally related bioactive molecules found with the same minimum structure were considered as neighbor molecules of the query molecule. The known target of the neighbor molecule is used as a reference for predicting the target of the neighbor molecule with an unknown target. A lot of information is needed to identify the minimum structure, because it is necessary to know which part(s) of the bioactive molecule determines the precise target or targets responsible for the observed phenotype. Therefore, the predicted target based on the minimum structure without employing the statistical significance is considered as a reliable prediction. Since only molecules that perfectly (and not partly) satisfy the minimum structure are considered, the minimum structure can be used without similarity calculations in non-digital materials and with similarity calculations (perfect similarity) in machine-readable materials. Nine tools (PASS online, PPB, SEA, TargetHunter, PharmMapper, ChemProt, HitPick, SuperPred, and SPiDER), which can be used for computational target prediction, are compared with the proposed method for 550 target predictions. The proposed method, SEA, PPB, and PASS online, showed the best quality and quantity for the accurate predictions.

Project description:A major goal in drug design is the improvement of computational methods for docking and scoring. The Community Structure Activity Resource (CSAR) has collected several data sets from industry and added in-house data sets that may be used for this purpose ( www.csardock.org). CSAR has currently obtained data from Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, and Vertex and is working on obtaining data from several others. Combined with our in-house projects, we are providing a data set consisting of 6 protein targets, 647 compounds with biological affinities, and 82 crystal structures. Multiple congeneric series are available for several targets with a few representative crystal structures of each of the series. These series generally contain a few inactive compounds, usually not available in the literature, to provide an upper bound to the affinity range. The affinity ranges are typically 3-4 orders of magnitude per series. For our in-house projects, we have had compounds synthesized for biological testing. Affinities were measured by Thermofluor, Octet RED, and isothermal titration calorimetry for the most soluble. This allows the direct comparison of the biological affinities for those compounds, providing a measure of the variance in the experimental affinity. It appears that there can be considerable variance in the absolute value of the affinity, making the prediction of the absolute value ill-defined. However, the relative rankings within the methods are much better, and this fits with the observation that predicting relative ranking is a more tractable problem computationally. For those in-house compounds, we also have measured the following physical properties: logD, logP, thermodynamic solubility, and pK(a). This data set also provides a substantial decoy set for each target consisting of diverse conformations covering the entire active site for all of the 58 CSAR-quality crystal structures. The CSAR data sets (CSAR-NRC HiQ and the 2012 release) provide substantial, publically available, curated data sets for use in parametrizing and validating docking and scoring methods.

Dataset Information

Is It Reliable to Use Common Molecular Docking Methods for Comparing the Binding Affinities of Enantiomer Pairs for Their Protein Target?

Publications

Is It Reliable to Use Common Molecular Docking Methods for Comparing the Binding Affinities of Enantiomer Pairs for Their Protein Target?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets