Advertisement

Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 427–440 | Cite as

Scoring noncovalent protein-ligand interactions: A continuous differentiable function tuned to compute binding affinities

  • Ajay N. Jain
Research Papers

Summary

Exploitation of protein structures for potential drug leads by molecular docking is critically dependent on methods for scoring putative protein-ligand interactions. An ideal function for scoring must exhibit predictive accuracy and high computational speed, and must be tolerant of variations in the relative protein-ligand molecular alignment and conformation. This paper describes the development of an empirically derived scoring function, based on the binding affinities of protein-ligand complexes coupled with their crystallographically determined structures. The function's primary terms involve hydrophobic and polar complementarity, with additional terms for entropic and solvation effects. The issue of alignment/conformation dependence was solved by constructing a continuous differentiable nonlinear function with the requirement that maxima in ligand conformation/alignment space corresponded closely to crystallographically determined structures. The expected error in the predicted affinity based on cross-validation was 1.0 log unit. The function is sufficiently fast and accurate to serve as the objective function of a molecular-docking search engine. The function is particularly well suited to the docking problem, since it has spatially narrow maxima that are broadly accessible via gradient descent.

Keywords

Molecular docking Protein-ligand interaction Scoring function 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rutenber E., Fauman E.B., Keenan R.J., Fong S., Furth P.S., Ortiz de Montellano P.R., Meng E., Kuntz I.D., DeCamp D.L., Salto R., Rose J.R., Craik C.S. and Stroud R.M., J. Biol. Chem., 268 (1993) 15343.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shoicet B.K., Stroud R.M., Santi D.V., Kuntz I.D. and Perry K.M., Science, 259 (1993) 1445.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bodian D.L., Yamasaki R.B., Buswell R.L., Stearns J.F., White J.M. and Kuntz I.D., Biochemistry, 32 (1993) 2967.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ring C.S., Sun E., McKerrow J.H., Lee G.K., Rosenthal P.J., Kuntz I.D. and Cohen F.E., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 90 (1993) 3583.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jain A.N., Harris N.L. and Park J.Y., J. Med. Chem., 38 (1995) 1295.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jain A.N., Dietterich T.G., Lathrop R.L., Chapman D., Critchlow R.E., Bauer B.E., Webster T.A. and Lozano-Perez T., J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 8 (1994) 635.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jain A.N., Koile K. and Chapman D., J. Med. Chem., 37 (1994) 2315.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Böhm H.-J., J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 8 (1994) 243.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bohacek R.S. and McMartin C., J. Med. Chem., 35 (1992) 1671.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ruppert, J., Welch, W. and Jain, A.N., manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Welch W., Ruppert J. and Jain A.N., Chem. Biol., 3 (1996) 449.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murray-Rust P. and Glusker J.P., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 106 (1984) 1018.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Searle M.S. and Williams D.H., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 114 (1992) 10690.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weber P.C., Wendoloski J.J., Pantoliano M.W. and Salemme F.R., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 114 (1992) 3197.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miyamoto S. and Kollman P.A., Proteins, 16 (1993) 226.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Katz B.A., Biochemistry, 34 (1995) 15421.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ESCOM Science Publishers B.V 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajay N. Jain
    • 1
  1. 1.Arris Pharmaceutical CorporationSan FranciscoU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations