Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 299–306 | Cite as

Evaluating docked complexes with the HINT exponential function and empirical atomic hydrophobicities

  • Elaine C. Meng
  • Irwin D. Kuntz
  • Donald J. Abraham
  • Glen E. Kellogg
Research Papers

Summary

Methods that predict geometries of ligands binding to receptor molecules can facilitate ligand discovery and yield information on the factors governing complementarity. Here, the use of atomic hydrophobicities in evaluating binding modes has been examined with four ligand-receptor complexes of known structure. In each system, hundreds of hypothetical binding orientations were generated with DOCK and evaluated using the HINT (Hydropathic INTeractions) exponential function and atomic hydrophobic constants. In three of the four systems, the experimental binding mode received the best HINT score; in the fourth system, the experimental binding mode scored only slightly lower than a similar, apparently reasonable orientation. The HINT function may be generally useful as a scoring method in molecular docking.

Key words

Molecular recognition Ligand binding Complementarity Hydropathy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kuntz, I.D., Blaney, J.M., Oatley, S.J., Langridge, R. and Ferrin, T.E., J. Mol. Biol., 161 (1982) 269.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shoichet, B.K., Bodian, D.L. and Kuntz, I.D., J. Comput. Chem., 13 (1992) 380.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meng, E.C., Shoichet, B.K. and Kuntz, I.D., J. Comput. Chem., 13 (1992) 505.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meng, E.C., Gschwend, D.A., Blaney, J.M. and Kuntz, I.D., Proteins, 17 (1993) 266.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wireko, F.C., Kellogg, G.E. and Abraham, D.J., J. Med. Chem., 34 (1991) 758.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kellogg, G.E., Joshi, G.S. and Abraham, D.J., Med. Chem. Res., 1 (1992) 444.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hansch, C. and Leo, A., Substituent Constants for Correlation Analysis in Chemistry and Biology, Wiley, New York, NY, 1979, pp. 1–339.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bernstein, F.C., Koetzle, T.F., Williams, G.J.B., MeyerJr., E.F., Brice, M.D., Rodgers, J.R., Kennard, O., Shimanouchi, T. and Tasumi, M., J. Mol. Biol., 112 (1977) 535.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferrin, T.E., Huang, C.C., Jarvis, L.E. and Langridge, R., J. Mol. Graphics, 6 (1988) 13.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rees, D.C. and Lipscomb, W.N., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 80 (1983) 7151.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bolin, J.T., Filman, D.J., Matthews, D.A., Hamlin, R.C. and Kraut, J., J. Biol. Chem., 257 (1982) 13650.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vyas, N.K., Vyas, M.N. and Quiocho, F.A., Science, 242 (1988) 1290.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Borah, B., Chen, C.-W., Egan, W., Miller, M., Wlodawer, A. and Cohen, J.S., Biochemistry, 24 (1985) 2058.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Connolly, M.L., Science, 221 (1983) 709.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ESCOM Science Publishers B.V 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elaine C. Meng
    • 1
  • Irwin D. Kuntz
    • 1
  • Donald J. Abraham
    • 2
  • Glen E. Kellogg
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, School of PharmacyUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoU.S.A.
  2. 2.Department of Medicinal Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, Medical College of VirginiaVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations