Abstract
Ligand affinity prediction from docking simulations is usually performed by means of highly empirical and diverse protocols. These protocols often involve the re-scoring of poses generated by a force field (FF) based Hamiltonian to provide either estimated binding affinities—or alternatively, some empirical goodness score. Re-scoring is performed by so-called scoring functions—typically, a reweighted sum of FF terms augmented by additional terms (e.g., desolvation/entropic penalty, hydrophobicity, aromatic interactions etc.). Sometimes, the scoring function actually drives ligand positioning, but often it only operates on the best scoring poses ranked top by the initial ligand positioning tool. In either of these rather intricate scenarios, scoring functions are docking-specific models, and most require machine-learning-based calibration. Therefore, docking simulations are less straightforward when compared to “standard” molecular simulations in which the FF Hamiltonian defines the energy, and affinity emerges as an ensemble average property over pools of representative conformers (i.e., the trajectory). Paraphrasing on Occam’s Razor principle, additional model complexity is only acceptable if demonstrated to bring a significant improvement of prediction quality. In this work we therefore examined whether the complexity inherent to scoring functions is indeed justified. For this purpose we compared sampler for multiple protein–ligand entities, a general purpose conformation sampler based on the AMBER/GAFF FF, complemented with continuum solvation terms, with several state of the art docking tools that rely on calibrated scoring functions (Glide, Gold, Autodock-Vina) in terms of its ability to top-rank the actives from large and diverse ligand series associated with various proteins. There is no clear winner of this study, where each program performed well on most of the targets, but also failed with respect to at least one of them. Therefore, a well-parameterized force field with a simple, energy-based ligand ranking protocol appears to be an as effective docking protocol as intricate rescoring strategies based on scoring functions. A tool that can sample the conformational space of the free ligand, the bound ligand and the protein binding site using the same force field may avoid many of the approximations common to contemporary docking protocols and allow e.g., for docking into highly flexible active sites, when current scoring functions are not well suited to estimate receptor strain energies.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Pason LP, Sotriffer CA (2016) Mol Inform 35(11–12):541
Ain QU, Aleksandrova A, Roessler FD, Ballester PJ (2015) Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Mol Sci 5(6):405
Cleves AE, Jain AN (2015) J Comput Aided Mol Design 29(6):485
Lindh M, Svensson F, Schaal W, Zhang J, Skold C, Brandt P, Karlen A (2015) J Chem Inform Model 55(2):343
Xu WJ, Lucke AJ, Fairlie DP (2015) J Mol Graph Model 57:76
Parenti MD, Rastelli G (2012) Biotechnol Adv 30(1):244
Neudert G, Klebe G (2011) J Chem Inform Model 51(10):2731
Shen QC, Xiong B, Zheng MY, Luo XM, Luo C, Liu XA, Du Y, Li J, Zhu WL, Shen JK, Jiang HL (2011) J Chem Inform Model 51(2):386
Guvench O, MacKerell AD Jr (2008) Methods Mol Biol 443:63
Damm W, Van Gunsteren WE (2000) J Comput Chem 21(9):774
Rasmussen K (1999) J Carbohydr Chem 18(7):789
Halgren TA (1996) J Comput Chem 17(5–6):490
Halgren TA (1995) Curr Opin Struct Biol 5(2):205
Doweyko AM (2008) J Comput Aided Mol Des 22(2):81
Gonzalez MP, Teran C, Saiz-Urra L, Teijeira M (2008) Curr Topics Med Chem 8:1606
Klebe G (2008) Understanding QSAR: do we always use the correct structural models to establish affinity correlation? http://www.qsar2008.org/home/FA04-10-12-42_h6vpw99c3zxmfq28f4e9/qsar2008.org/public_html/File/abstract%20session%207/Klebe_QSAR_Uppsala_2008.pdf. Accessed 2009
Maggiora GM (2006) J Chem Inform Model 46:1535
Mullinax JW, Noid WG (2010) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(46):19867
Blundell TL, Sibanda BL, Sternberg MJ, Thornton JM (1987) Nature 326(6111):347
Watson P (2008) J Chem Inform Model 48(1):166
Horvath D (1997) J Med Chem 15:2412
Ding F, Dokholyan NV (2013) J Chem Inform Model 53(8):1871
Krüger DM, Jessen G, Gohlke H (2012) J Chem Inform Model 52(11):2807
Yin S, Biedermannova L, Vondrasek J, Dokholyan NV (2008) J Chem Inform Model 48(8):1656
Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC (1995) J Mol Biol 245(1):43
Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC, Leach AR, Taylor R (1997) J Mol Biol 267(3):727
Friesner RA, Murphy RB, Repasky MP, Frye LL, Greenwood JR, Halgren TA, Sanschagrin PC, Mainz DT (2006) J Med Chem 49(21):6177
Halgren TA, Murphy RB, Friesner RA, Beard HS, Frye LL, Pollard WT, Banks JL (2004) J Med Chem 47(7):1750
Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, Halgren TA, Klicic JJ, Mainz DT, Repasky MP, Knoll EH, Shelley M, Perry JK, Shaw DE, Francis P, Shenkin PS (2004) J Med Chem 47(7):1739
McGann M (2011) J Chem Inform Model 51(3):578
Kelley BP, Brown SP, Warren GL, Muchmore SW (2015) J Chem Inf Model 55(8):1771
McGann M (2012) J Comput Aided Mol Des 26(8):897
Morris GM (2007) AutoDock. https://autodock.scripps.edu/. Accessed 2008
Horvath D, Marcou G, Varnek A (2009) J Chem Inform Model 49(7):1762
Jaworska J, Nikolova-Jeliazkova N, Aldenberg T (2005) ATLA Altern Lab Anim 33(5):445
Brewerton SC (2008) Curr Opin Drug Discov Dev 11(3):356
Baroni M, Cruciani G, Sciabola S, Perruccio F, Mason JS (2007) J Chem Inform Model 47(2):279
Marcou G, Rognan D (2007) J Chem Inform Model 47(1):195
Choudhury N, Montgomery-Pettitt B (2007) J Am Chem Soc 129:4847
Chandler D (2005) Nature 437(7059):640
Bohm HJ, Stahl M (2002) The use of scoring functions in drug discovery applications. Rev Comput Chem 18:41
Liu L, Yang C, Guo QX (2000) Biophys Chem 84:239
Hoffer L, Chira C, Marcou G, Varnek A, Horvath D (2015) Molecules (Basel Switz) 20(5):8997
Hoffer L, Renaud J-P, Horvath D (2013) J Chem Inform Model 53(4):836
Hoffer L, Horvath D (2012) J Chem Inform Model 53(1):88
Pearlman DA, Case DA, Caldwell JW, Ross WS, Cheatham TE, Debolt S, Ferguson D, Seibel G, Kollman P (1995) Comput Phys Commun 91(1–3):1
Wang JM, Wolf RM, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA, Case DA (2004) J Comput Chem 25(9):1157
Gaulton A, Bellis LJ, Bento AP, Chambers J, Davies M, Hersey A, Light Y, McGlinchey S, Michalovich D, Al-Lazikani B, Overington JP (2011) Nucleic Acids Res 40(D1):D1100
Mysinger MM, Carchia M, Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK (2012) J Med Chem 55(14):6582
Sokolova M, Japkowicz N, Szpakowicz S (2006) Beyond accuracy, F-score and ROC: a family of discriminant measures for performance evaluation. AAAI Workshop Tech Rep 2006:24
Schrödinger L (2005) Glide. LLC, New York
Verdonk ML, Cole JC, Hartshorn MJ, Murray CW, Taylor RD (2003) Proteins Struct Funct Genet 52:609
Trott O, Olson Arthur J (2009) J Comput Chem 31(2):455
Sidorov P, Gaspar H, Marcou G, Varnek A, Horvath D (2015) J Comput Aided Mol Des 29(12):1087
Varnek A, Fourches D, Horvath D, Klimchuk O, Gaudin C, Vayer P, Solov’ev V, Hoonakker F, Tetko IV, Marcou G (2008) Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 4(3):191
Horvath D, Brown J, Marcou G, Varnek A (2014) Challenges 5(2):450
Pedretti A, Villa L, Vistoli G (2004) J Comput Aided Mol Des 18(3):167
Willett P, Barnard JM, Downs GM (1998) J Chem Inform Model 38:983
ChemAxon (2007) Tautomer plugin. ChemAxon, Budapest. http://www.chemaxon.com/marvin-archive/4.1.3/marvin/chemaxon/marvin/help/calculator-plugins.html#tautomer. Accessed Oct 2011.
ChemAxon (2007) pKa calculator plugin. ChemAxon, Budapest. https://www.chemaxon.com/products/calculator-plugins/property-predictors/. Accessed Feb 2013
ChemAxon (2014) Conformer plugin. ChemAxon, Budapest. https://docs.chemaxon.com/display/docs/Conformer+Plugin. Accessed 2018
ChemAxon (2008) Calculation of partial charge distributions. ChemAxon, Budapest. http://www.chemaxon.com/marvin/help/calculations/charge.html. Accessed Feb 2009
Case DA, Darden TA, Cheatham TE, Simmerling CL, Wang J, Duke RE, Luo R, Walker RC, Zhang W, Merz KM, Roberts B, Hayik S, Roitberg A, Seabra G, Swails J, Goetz AW, Kolossvary I, Wong KF, Paesani F, Vanicek J, Wolf RM, Liu J, Wu X, Brozell SR, Steinbrecher T, Gohlke H, Cai Q, Ye X, Hsieh M-J, Cui G, Roe DR, Mathews DH, Seetin MG, Salomon-Ferrer R, Sagui C, Babin V, Luchko T, Gusarov S, Kovalenko A, Kollman PA (2012) AMBER 12. University of California, San Diego. http://ambermd.org/doc12/Amber12.pdf. Accessed Aug 2018
Carhart ER, Smith DH, Venkataraghavan R (1985) J Chem Inform Comput Sci 25:64
Laboratoire de Chemoinformatique Strasbourg (2012) Nomenclature of ISIDA fragments. Laboratory of Chemoinformatics, Strasbourg
Ruggiu F, Marcou G, Varnek A, Horvath D (2010) Mol Inform 29(12):855
Welch BL (1947) Biometrika 34:28
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the staff of the two computer centers which hosted the simulations: high-performance computing (HPC) of the University of Strasbourg and HPC of the chemistry faculty of Cluj-Napoca. AV thanks the Russian Science Foundation Grant No. 14-43-00052 for support.
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
Zhenin, M., Bahia, M.S., Marcou, G. et al. Rescoring of docking poses under Occam’s Razor: are there simpler solutions?. J Comput Aided Mol Des 32, 877–888 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-018-0155-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-018-0155-5