Abstract
Molecular docking is by far the most common method used in protein structure-based virtual screening. This paper presents Panther, a novel ultrafast multipurpose docking tool. In Panther, a simple shape-electrostatic model of the ligand-binding area of the protein is created by utilizing the protein crystal structure. The features of the possible ligands are then compared to the model by using a similarity search algorithm. On average, one ligand can be processed in a few minutes by using classical docking methods, whereas using Panther processing takes <1 s. The presented Panther protocol can be used in several applications, such as speeding up the early phases of drug discovery projects, reducing the number of failures in the clinical phase of the drug development process, and estimating the environmental toxicity of chemicals. Panther-code is available in our web pages (http://www.jyu.fi/panther) free of charge after registration.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- AR:
-
Androgen receptor
- AUC:
-
Area under curve
- DUD:
-
Directory of Useful Decoys
- DUD-E:
-
Directory of Useful Decoys: Enhanced
- EF:
-
Enrichment factor
- ERα:
-
Estrogen receptor alpha
- GR:
-
Glucocorticoid receptor
- MMFF:
-
Merck molecular force field
- MMGBSA:
-
Molecular Mechanics Generalized Born Area
- MR:
-
Mineralocorticoid receptor
- NIB:
-
Negative image-based
- PDB:
-
Protein Data Bank
- PPARγ:
-
Peroxisome proliferator activated receptor gamma
- PR:
-
Progesterone receptor
- RMSD:
-
Root mean square deviation
- ROC:
-
Receiver operating characteristics
- RXRα:
-
Retinoid X receptor alpha
- COX2:
-
Cyclo-oxygenase 2
- PDE5:
-
Phosphodiesterase type 5
References
Ferrara P, Gohlke H, Price DJ, Klebe G, Brooks CL 3rd (2004) Assessing scoring functions for protein–ligand interactions. J Med Chem 47(12):3032–3047. doi:10.1021/jm030489h
Scior T, Bender A, Tresadern G, Medina-Franco JL, Martinez-Mayorga K, Langer T, Cuanalo-Contreras K, Agrafiotis DK (2012) Recognizing pitfalls in virtual screening: a critical review. J Chem Inf Model 52(4):867–881. doi:10.1021/ci200528d
Cross JB, Thompson DC, Rai BK, Baber JC, Fan KY, Hu Y, Humblet C (2009) Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy. J Chem Inf Model 49(6):1455–1474. doi:10.1021/ci900056c
Warren GL, Andrews CW, Capelli AM, Clarke B, LaLonde J, Lambert MH, Lindvall M, Nevins N, Semus SF, Senger S, Tedesco G, Wall ID, Woolven JM, Peishoff CE, Head MS (2006) A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J Med Chem 49(20):5912–5931. doi:10.1021/jm050362n
Virtanen SI, Pentikainen OT (2010) Efficient virtual screening using multiple protein conformations described as negative images of the ligand-binding site. J Chem Inf Model 50(6):1005–1011. doi:10.1021/ci100121c
Jain AN (2009) Effects of protein conformation in docking: improved pose prediction through protein pocket adaptation. J Comput Aided Mol Des 23(6):355–374. doi:10.1007/s10822-009-9266-3
Chen Z, Li HL, Zhang QJ, Bao XG, Yu KQ, Luo XM, Zhu WL, Jiang HL (2009) Pharmacophore-based virtual screening versus docking-based virtual screening: a benchmark comparison against eight targets. Acta Pharmacol Sin 30(12):1694–1708. doi:10.1038/aps.2009.159
Kirchmair J, Distinto S, Markt P, Schuster D, Spitzer GM, Liedl KR, Wolber G (2009) How to optimize shape-based virtual screening: choosing the right query and including chemical information. J Chem Inf Model 49(3):678–692. doi:10.1021/ci8004226
McGaughey GB, Sheridan RP, Bayly CI, Culberson JC, Kreatsoulas C, Lindsley S, Maiorov V, Truchon JF, Cornell WD (2007) Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 47(4):1504–1519. doi:10.1021/ci700052x
Venkatraman V, Perez-Nueno VI, Mavridis L, Ritchie DW (2010) Comprehensive comparison of ligand-based virtual screening tools against the DUD data set reveals limitations of current 3D methods. J Chem Inf Model 50(12):2079–2093. doi:10.1021/ci100263p
von Korff M, Freyss J, Sander T (2009) Comparison of ligand- and structure-based virtual screening on the DUD data set. J Chem Inf Model 49(2):209–231. doi:10.1021/Ci800303k
Vainio MJ, Puranen JS, Johnson MS (2009) ShaEP: molecular overlay based on shape and electrostatic potential. J Chem Inf Model 49(2):492–502. doi:10.1021/ci800315d
Kortagere S, Krasowski MD, Ekins S (2009) The importance of discerning shape in molecular pharmacology. Trends Pharmacol Sci 30(3):138–147. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2008.12.001
Markt P, Petersen RK, Flindt EN, Kristiansen K, Kirchmair J, Spitzer G, Distinto S, Schuster D, Wolber G, Laggner C, Langer T (2008) Discovery of novel PPAR ligands by a virtual screening approach based on pharmacophore modeling, 3D shape, and electrostatic similarity screening. J Med Chem 51(20):6303–6317. doi:10.1021/jm800128k
Nicholls A, McGaughey GB, Sheridan RP, Good AC, Warren G, Mathieu M, Muchmore SW, Brown SP, Grant JA, Haigh JA, Nevins N, Jain AN, Kelley B (2010) Molecular shape and medicinal chemistry: a perspective. J Med Chem 53(10):3862–3886. doi:10.1021/jm900818s
Dong F, Olsen B, Baker NA (2008) Computational methods for biomolecular electrostatics. Methods Cell Biol 84:843–870. doi:10.1016/S0091-679X(07)84026-X
Sheinerman FB, Norel R, Honig B (2000) Electrostatic aspects of protein–protein interactions. Curr Opin Struct Biol 10(2):153–159
Bruning JB, Parent AA, Gil G, Zhao M, Nowak J, Pace MC, Smith CL, Afonine PV, Adams PD, Katzenellenbogen JA, Nettles KW (2010) Coupling of receptor conformation and ligand orientation determine graded activity. Nat Chem Biol 6(11):837–843. doi:10.1038/nchembio.451
Barril X, Morley SD (2005) Unveiling the full potential of flexible receptor docking using multiple crystallographic structures. J Med Chem 48(13):4432–4443. doi:10.1021/jm048972v
Huang SY, Zou X (2007) Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: considering protein structural variations in molecular docking. Proteins 66(2):399–421. doi:10.1002/prot.21214
Corbeil CR, Therrien E, Moitessier N (2009) Modeling reality for optimal docking of small molecules to biological targets. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 5(4):241–263
Niinivehmas SP, Virtanen SI, Lehtonen JV, Postila PA, Pentikainen OT (2011) Comparison of virtual high-throughput screening methods for the identification of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. J Chem Inf Model 51(6):1353–1363. doi:10.1021/ci1004527
Tsui V, Case DA (2000) Theory and applications of the generalized Born solvation model in macromolecular simulations. Biopolymers 56(4):275–291. doi:10.1002/1097-0282(2000)56:4<275:AID-BIP10024>3.0.CO;2-E
Kollman PA, Massova I, Reyes C, Kuhn B, Huo S, Chong L, Lee M, Lee T, Duan Y, Wang W, Donini O, Cieplak P, Srinivasan J, Case DA, Cheatham TE 3rd (2000) Calculating structures and free energies of complex molecules: combining molecular mechanics and continuum models. Acc Chem Res 33(12):889–897
Kleywegt GJ, Jones TA (1994) Detection, delineation, measurement and display of cavities in macromolecular structures. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 50(Pt 2):178–185. doi:10.1107/S0907444993011333
Huang N, Shoichet BK, Irwin JJ (2006) Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J Med Chem 49(23):6789–6801. doi:10.1021/jm0608356
Mysinger MM, Carchia M, Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK (2012) Directory of useful decoys, enhanced (DUD-E): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking. J Med Chem 55(14):6582–6594. doi:10.1021/jm300687e
Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE (2000) The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28(1):235–242
Word JM, Lovell SC, Richardson JS, Richardson DC (1999) Asparagine and glutamine: using hydrogen atom contacts in the choice of side-chain amide orientation. J Mol Biol 285(4):1735–1747. doi:10.1006/jmbi.1998.2401
He B, Gampe RT Jr, Kole AJ, Hnat AT, Stanley TB, An G, Stewart EL, Kalman RI, Minges JT, Wilson EM (2004) Structural basis for androgen receptor interdomain and coactivator interactions suggests a transition in nuclear receptor activation function dominance. Mol Cell 16(3):425–438. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2004.09.036
Pereira de Jesus-Tran K, Cote PL, Cantin L, Blanchet J, Labrie F, Breton R (2006) Comparison of crystal structures of human androgen receptor ligand-binding domain complexed with various agonists reveals molecular determinants responsible for binding affinity. Protein Sci 15(5):987–999. doi:10.1110/ps.051905906
Shiau AK, Barstad D, Radek JT, Meyers MJ, Nettles KW, Katzenellenbogen BS, Katzenellenbogen JA, Agard DA, Greene GL (2002) Structural characterization of a subtype-selective ligand reveals a novel mode of estrogen receptor antagonism. Nat Struct Biol 9(5):359–364. doi:10.1038/nsb787
Shiau AK, Barstad D, Loria PM, Cheng L, Kushner PJ, Agard DA, Greene GL (1998) The structural basis of estrogen receptor/coactivator recognition and the antagonism of this interaction by tamoxifen. Cell 95(7):927–937
Kim S, Wu JY, Birzin ET, Frisch K, Chan W, Pai LY, Yang YT, Mosley RT, Fitzgerald PM, Sharma N, Dahllund J, Thorsell AG, DiNinno F, Rohrer SP, Schaeffer JM, Hammond ML (2004) Estrogen receptor ligands. II. Discovery of benzoxathiins as potent, selective estrogen receptor alpha modulators. J Med Chem 47(9):2171–2175. doi:10.1021/jm034243o
Bledsoe RK, Montana VG, Stanley TB, Delves CJ, Apolito CJ, McKee DD, Consler TG, Parks DJ, Stewart EL, Willson TM, Lambert MH, Moore JT, Pearce KH, Xu HE (2002) Crystal structure of the glucocorticoid receptor ligand binding domain reveals a novel mode of receptor dimerization and coactivator recognition. Cell 110(1):93–105
Suino-Powell K, Xu Y, Zhang C, Tao YG, Tolbert WD, Simons SS Jr, Xu HE (2008) Doubling the size of the glucocorticoid receptor ligand binding pocket by deacylcortivazol. Mol Cell Biol 28(6):1915–1923. doi:10.1128/MCB.01541-07
Bledsoe RK, Madauss KP, Holt JA, Apolito CJ, Lambert MH, Pearce KH, Stanley TB, Stewart EL, Trump RP, Willson TM, Williams SP (2005) A ligand-mediated hydrogen bond network required for the activation of the mineralocorticoid receptor. J Biol Chem 280(35):31283–31293. doi:10.1074/jbc.M504098200
Gampe RT Jr, Montana VG, Lambert MH, Miller AB, Bledsoe RK, Milburn MV, Kliewer SA, Willson TM, Xu HE (2000) Asymmetry in the PPARgamma/RXRalpha crystal structure reveals the molecular basis of heterodimerization among nuclear receptors. Mol Cell 5(3):545–555
Kuhn B, Hilpert H, Benz J, Binggeli A, Grether U, Humm R, Marki HP, Meyer M, Mohr P (2006) Structure-based design of indole propionic acids as novel PPARalpha/gamma co-agonists. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 16(15):4016–4020. doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2006.05.007
Madauss KP, Deng SJ, Austin RJ, Lambert MH, McLay I, Pritchard J, Short SA, Stewart EL, Uings IJ, Williams SP (2004) Progesterone receptor ligand binding pocket flexibility: crystal structures of the norethindrone and mometasone furoate complexes. J Med Chem 47(13):3381–3387. doi:10.1021/jm030640n
Kallander LS, Washburn DG, Hoang TH, Frazee JS, Stoy P, Johnson L, Lu Q, Hammond M, Barton LS, Patterson JR, Azzarano LM, Nagilla R, Madauss KP, Williams SP, Stewart EL, Duraiswami C, Grygielko ET, Xu X, Laping NJ, Bray JD, Thompson SK (2010) Improving the developability profile of pyrrolidine progesterone receptor partial agonists. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 20(1):371–374. doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2009.10.092
Egea PF, Mitschler A, Moras D (2002) Molecular recognition of agonist ligands by RXRs. Mol Endocrinol 16(5):987–997. doi:10.1210/mend.16.5.0823
Kurumbail RG, Stevens AM, Gierse JK, McDonald JJ, Stegeman RA, Pak JY, Gildehaus D, Miyashiro JM, Penning TD, Seibert K, Isakson PC, Stallings WC (1996) Structural basis for selective inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 by anti-inflammatory agents. Nature 384(6610):644–648. doi:10.1038/384644a0
Wang JL, Limburg D, Graneto MJ, Springer J, Hamper JR, Liao S, Pawlitz JL, Kurumbail RG, Maziasz T, Talley JJ, Kiefer JR, Carter J (2010) The novel benzopyran class of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors. Part 2: the second clinical candidate having a shorter and favorable human half-life. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 20(23):7159–7163. doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2010.07.054
Card GL, England BP, Suzuki Y, Fong D, Powell B, Lee B, Luu C, Tabrizizad M, Gillette S, Ibrahim PN, Artis DR, Bollag G, Milburn MV, Kim SH, Schlessinger J, Zhang KY (2004) Structural basis for the activity of drugs that inhibit phosphodiesterases. Structure 12(12):2233–2247. doi:10.1016/j.str.2004.10.004
Sung BJ, Hwang KY, Jeon YH, Lee JI, Heo YS, Kim JH, Moon J, Yoon JM, Hyun YL, Kim E, Eum SJ, Park SY, Lee JO, Lee TG, Ro S, Cho JM (2003) Structure of the catalytic domain of human phosphodiesterase 5 with bound drug molecules. Nature 425(6953):98–102. doi:10.1038/nature01914
LigPrep v 3.2 (2014) Schrödinger, LLC, New York, NY
Watts KS, Dalal P, Murphy RB, Sherman W, Friesner RA, Shelley JC (2010) ConfGen: a conformational search method for efficient generation of bioactive conformers. J Chem Inf Model 50(4):534–546. doi:10.1021/ci100015j
Halgren TA (1995) Potential energy functions. Curr Opin Struct Biol 5(2):205–210
Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143(1):29–36. doi:10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747
Lehtonen JV, Still DJ, Rantanen VV, Ekholm J, Bjorkland D, Iftikhar Z, Huhtala M, Repo S, Jussila A, Jaakkola J, Pentikainen O, Nyronen T, Salminen T, Gyllenberg M, Johnson MS (2004) BODIL: a molecular modeling environment for structure-function analysis and drug design. J Comput Aided Mol Des 18(6):401–419
Kraulis P (1991) Molscript: a program to produce both detailed and schematic plots of protein structures. J Appl Cryst 24(5):946–950. doi:10.1107/SO021889891004399
Merritt EA, Bacon DJ (1997) Raster3D: photorealistic molecular graphics. Methods Enzymol 277:505–524
Vaz de Lima LA, Nascimento AS (2013) MolShaCS: a free and open source tool for ligand similarity identification based on Gaussian descriptors. Eur J Med Chem 59:296–303. doi:10.1016/j.ejmech.2012.11.013
Arciniega M, Lange OF (2014) Improvement of virtual screening results by docking data feature analysis. J Chem Inf Model 54(5):1401–1411. doi:10.1021/ci500028u
Wallach I, Lilien R (2011) Virtual decoy sets for molecular docking benchmarks. J Chem Inf Model 51(2):196–202. doi:10.1021/ci100374f
Schneider N, Hindle S, Lange G, Klein R, Albrecht J, Briem H, Beyer K, Claussen H, Gastreich M, Lemmen C, Rarey M (2012) Substantial improvements in large-scale redocking and screening using the novel HYDE scoring function. J Comput Aided Mol Des 26(6):701–723. doi:10.1007/s10822-011-9531-0
Hawkins PC, Skillman AG, Nicholls A (2007) Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools. J Med Chem 50(1):74–82. doi:10.1021/jm0603365
Kellenberger E, Rodrigo J, Muller P, Rognan D (2004) Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins 57(2):225–242. doi:10.1002/prot.20149
Trott O, Olson AJ (2010) AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem 31(2):455–461. doi:10.1002/jcc.21334
McGann M (2011) FRED pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy. J Chem Inf Model 51(3):578–596. doi:10.1021/ci100436p
Zsoldos Z, Reid D, Simon A, Sadjad SB, Johnson AP (2007) eHiTS: a new fast, exhaustive flexible ligand docking system. J Mol Graph Model 26(1):198–212. doi:10.1016/j.jmgm.2006.06.002
Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T, Klebe G (1996) A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol 261(3):470–489. doi:10.1006/jmbi.1996.0477
Irwin JJ (2008) Community benchmarks for virtual screening. J Comput Aided Mol Des 22(3–4):193–199. doi:10.1007/s10822-008-9189-4
Coleman RG, Carchia M, Sterling T, Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK (2013) Ligand pose and orientational sampling in molecular docking. PLoS One 8(10):e75992. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075992
Zhang X, Wong SE, Lightstone FC (2014) Toward fully automated high performance computing drug discovery: a massively parallel virtual screening pipeline for docking and molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area rescoring to improve enrichment. J Chem Inf Model 54(1):324–337. doi:10.1021/ci4005145
Corbeil CR, Moitessier N (2009) Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 3. Impact of input ligand conformation, protein flexibility, and water molecules on the accuracy of docking programs. J Chem Inf Model 49(4):997–1009. doi:10.1021/ci8004176
Petukh M, Stefl S, Alexov E (2013) The role of protonation states in ligand-receptor recognition and binding. Curr Pharm Des 19(23):4182–4190
Sastry GM, Adzhigirey M, Day T, Annabhimoju R, Sherman W (2013) Protein and ligand preparation: parameters, protocols, and influence on virtual screening enrichments. J Comput Aided Mol Des 27(3):221–234. doi:10.1007/s10822-013-9644-8
Urbaczek S, Kolodzik A, Rarey M (2014) The valence state combination model: a generic framework for handling tautomers and protonation states. J Chem Inf Model 54(3):756–766. doi:10.1021/ci400724v
Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by National Doctoral Programme in Nanoscience (SPN) and Academy of Finland (HR). CSC, The Finnish IT Center for Science is acknowledged for computational resources (OTP; Project Nos. jyy2516 and jyy2585).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Niinivehmas, S.P., Salokas, K., Lätti, S. et al. Ultrafast protein structure-based virtual screening with Panther. J Comput Aided Mol Des 29, 989–1006 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-015-9870-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-015-9870-3