Sampling and refinement protocols for template-based macrocycle docking: 2018 D3R Grand Challenge 4.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kotelnikov S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7553231 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We present the performances of our mathematical deep learning (MathDL) models for D3R Grand Challenge 4 (GC4). This challenge involves pose prediction, affinity ranking, and free energy estimation for beta secretase 1 (BACE) as well as affinity ranking and free energy estimation for Cathepsin S (CatS). We have developed advanced mathematics, namely differential geometry, algebraic graph, and/or algebraic topology, to accurately and efficiently encode high dimensional physical/chemical interactions into scalable low-dimensional rotational and translational invariant representations. These representations are integrated with deep learning models, such as generative adversarial networks (GAN) and convolutional neural networks (CNN) for pose prediction and energy evaluation, respectively. Overall, our MathDL models achieved the top place in pose prediction for BACE ligands in Stage 1a. Moreover, our submissions obtained the highest Spearman correlation coefficient on the affinity ranking of 460 CatS compounds, and the smallest centered root mean square error on the free energy set of 39 CatS molecules. It is worthy to mention that our method on docking pose predictions has significantly improved from our previous ones.
| S-EPMC7376411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the framework of the 2018 Drug Design Data Resource grand challenge 4, blinded predictions on relative binding free energy were performed for a set of 39 ligands of the Cathepsin S protein. We leveraged the GPU-accelerated thermodynamic integration of Amber 18 to advance our computational prediction. When our entry was compared to experimental results, a good correlation was observed (Kendall's τ: 0.62, Spearman's ρ: 0.80 and Pearson's R: 0.82). We designed a parallelized transformation map that placed ligands into several groups based on common alchemical substructures; TI transformations were carried out for each ligand to the relevant substructure, and between substructures. Our calculations were all conducted using the linear potential scaling scheme in Amber TI because we believe the softcore potential/dual-topology approach as implemented in current Amber TI is highly fault-prone for some transformations. The issue is illustrated by using two examples in which typical preparation for the dual-topology approach of Amber TI fails. Overall, the high accuracy of our prediction is a result of recent advances in force fields (ff14SB and GAFF), as well as rapid calculation of ensemble averages enabled by the GPU implementation of Amber. The success shown here in a blinded prediction strongly suggests that alchemical free energy calculation in Amber is a promising tool for future commercial drug design.
| S-EPMC6899192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Manifold representations of rotational/translational motion and conformational space of a ligand were previously shown to be effective for local energy optimization. In this paper we report the development of the Monte-Carlo energy minimization approach (MCM), which uses the same manifold representation. The approach was integrated into the docking pipeline developed for the current round of D3R experiment, and according to D3R assessment produced high accuracy poses for Cathepsin S ligands. Additionally, we have shown that (MD) refinement further improves docking quality. The code of the Monte-Carlo minimization is freely available at https://bitbucket.org/abc-group/mcm-demo .
| S-EPMC6816043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) ran Grand Challenge 2015 between September 2015 and February 2016. Two targets served as the framework to test community docking and scoring methods: (1) HSP90, donated by AbbVie and the Community Structure Activity Resource (CSAR), and (2) MAP4K4, donated by Genentech. The challenges for both target datasets were conducted in two stages, with the first stage testing pose predictions and the capacity to rank compounds by affinity with minimal structural data; and the second stage testing methods for ranking compounds with knowledge of at least a subset of the ligand-protein poses. An additional sub-challenge provided small groups of chemically similar HSP90 compounds amenable to alchemical calculations of relative binding free energy. Unlike previous blinded Challenges, we did not provide cognate receptors or receptors prepared with hydrogens and likewise did not require a specified crystal structure to be used for pose or affinity prediction in Stage 1. Given the freedom to select from over 200 crystal structures of HSP90 in the PDB, participants employed workflows that tested not only core docking and scoring technologies, but also methods for addressing water-mediated ligand-protein interactions, binding pocket flexibility, and the optimal selection of protein structures for use in docking calculations. Nearly 40 participating groups submitted over 350 prediction sets for Grand Challenge 2015. This overview describes the datasets and the organization of the challenge components, summarizes the results across all submitted predictions, and considers broad conclusions that may be drawn from this collaborative community endeavor.
| S-EPMC5562487 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We report the performance of HADDOCK in the 2018 iteration of the Grand Challenge organised by the D3R consortium. Building on the findings of our participation in last year's challenge, we significantly improved our pose prediction protocol which resulted in a mean RMSD for the top scoring pose of 3.04 and 2.67 Å for the cross-docking and self-docking experiments respectively, which corresponds to an overall success rate of 63% and 71% when considering the top1 and top5 models respectively. This performance ranks HADDOCK as the 6th and 3rd best performing group (excluding multiple submissions from a same group) out of a total of 44 and 47 submissions respectively. Our ligand-based binding affinity predictor is the 3rd best predictor overall, behind only the two leading structure-based implementations, and the best ligand-based one with a Kendall's Tau correlation of 0.36 for the Cathepsin challenge. It also performed well in the classification part of the Kinase challenges, with Matthews Correlation Coefficients of 0.49 (ranked 1st), 0.39 (ranked 4th) and 0.21 (ranked 4th) for the JAK2, vEGFR2 and p38a targets respectively. Through our participation in last year's competition we came to the conclusion that template selection is of critical importance for the successful outcome of the docking. This year we have made improvements in two additional areas of importance: ligand conformer selection and initial positioning, which have been key to our excellent pose prediction performance this year.
| S-EPMC6373529 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We have studied the binding of 102 ligands to the farnesoid X receptor within the D3R Grand Challenge 2016 blind-prediction competition. First, we employed docking with five different docking software and scoring functions. The selected docked poses gave an average root-mean-squared deviation of 4.2 Å. Consensus scoring gave decent results with a Kendall's ? of 0.26?±?0.06 and a Spearman's ? of 0.41?±?0.08. For a subset of 33 ligands, we calculated relative binding free energies with free-energy perturbation. Five transformations between the ligands involved a change of the net charge and we implemented and benchmarked a semi-analytic correction (Rocklin et al., J Chem Phys 139:184103, 2013) for artifacts caused by the periodic boundary conditions and Ewald summation. The results gave a mean absolute deviation of 7.5 kJ/mol compared to the experimental estimates and a correlation coefficient of R 2?=?0.1. These results were among the four best in this competition out of 22 submissions. The charge corrections were significant (7-8 kJ/mol) and always improved the results. By employing 23 intermediate states in the free-energy perturbation, there was a proper overlap between all states and the precision was 0.1-0.7 kJ/mol. However, thermodynamic cycles indicate that the sampling was insufficient in some of the perturbations.
| S-EPMC5767205 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We have estimated the binding affinity of three sets of ligands of the heat-shock protein 90 in the D3R grand challenge blind test competition. We have employed four different methods, based on five different crystal structures: first, we docked the ligands to the proteins with induced-fit docking with the Glide software and calculated binding affinities with three energy functions. Second, the docked structures were minimised in a continuum solvent and binding affinities were calculated with the MM/GBSA method (molecular mechanics combined with generalised Born and solvent-accessible surface area solvation). Third, the docked structures were re-optimised by combined quantum mechanics and molecular mechanics (QM/MM) calculations. Then, interaction energies were calculated with quantum mechanical calculations employing 970-1160 atoms in a continuum solvent, combined with energy corrections for dispersion, zero-point energy and entropy, ligand distortion, ligand solvation, and an increase of the basis set to quadruple-zeta quality. Fourth, relative binding affinities were estimated by free-energy simulations, using the multi-state Bennett acceptance-ratio approach. Unfortunately, the results were varying and rather poor, with only one calculation giving a correlation to the experimental affinities larger than 0.7, and with no consistent difference in the quality of the predictions from the various methods. For one set of ligands, the results could be strongly improved (after experimental data were revealed) if it was recognised that one of the ligands displaced one or two water molecules. For the other two sets, the problem is probably that the ligands bind in different modes than in the crystal structures employed or that the conformation of the ligand-binding site or the whole protein changes.
| S-EPMC5078160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this paper we describe our approaches to predict the binding mode of twenty BACE1 ligands as part of Grand Challenge 4 (GC4), organized by the Drug Design Data Resource. Calculations for all submissions (except for one, which used AutoDock4.2) were performed using AutoDock-GPU, the new GPU-accelerated version of AutoDock4 implemented in OpenCL, which features a gradient-based local search. The pose prediction challenge was organized in two stages. In Stage 1a, the protein conformations associated with each of the ligands were undisclosed, so we docked each ligand to a set of eleven receptor conformations, chosen to maximize the diversity of binding pocket topography. Protein conformations were made available in Stage 1b, making it a re-docking task. For all calculations, macrocyclic conformations were sampled on the fly during docking, taking the target structure into account. To leverage information from existing structures containing BACE1 bound to ligands available in the PDB, we tested biased docking and pose filter protocols to facilitate poses resembling those experimentally determined. Both pose filters and biased docking resulted in more accurate docked poses, enabling us to predict for both Stages 1a and 1b ligand poses within 2 Å RMSD from the crystallographic pose. Nevertheless, many of the ligands could be correctly docked without using existing structural information, demonstrating the usefulness of physics-based scoring functions, such as the one used in AutoDock4, for structure based drug design.
| S-EPMC7325737 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Drug Design Data Resource aims to test and advance the state of the art in protein-ligand modeling by holding community-wide blinded, prediction challenges. Here, we report on our third major round, Grand Challenge 3 (GC3). Held 2017-2018, GC3 centered on the protein Cathepsin S and the kinases VEGFR2, JAK2, p38-α, TIE2, and ABL1, and included both pose-prediction and affinity-ranking components. GC3 was structured much like the prior challenges GC2015 and GC2. First, Stage 1 tested pose prediction and affinity ranking methods; then all available crystal structures were released, and Stage 2 tested only affinity rankings, now in the context of the available structures. Unique to GC3 was the addition of a Stage 1b self-docking subchallenge, in which the protein coordinates from all of the cocrystal structures used in the cross-docking challenge were released, and participants were asked to predict the pose of CatS ligands using these newly released structures. We provide an overview of the outcomes and discuss insights into trends and best-practices.
| S-EPMC6472484 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC5711532 | biostudies-literature