Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 701–723 | Cite as

Substantial improvements in large-scale redocking and screening using the novel HYDE scoring function

  • Nadine Schneider
  • Sally Hindle
  • Gudrun Lange
  • Robert Klein
  • Jürgen Albrecht
  • Hans Briem
  • Kristin Beyer
  • Holger Claußen
  • Marcus Gastreich
  • Christian Lemmen
  • Matthias Rarey


The HYDE scoring function consistently describes hydrogen bonding, the hydrophobic effect and desolvation. It relies on HYdration and DEsolvation terms which are calibrated using octanol/water partition coefficients of small molecules. We do not use affinity data for calibration, therefore HYDE is generally applicable to all protein targets. HYDE reflects the Gibbs free energy of binding while only considering the essential interactions of protein–ligand complexes. The greatest benefit of HYDE is that it yields a very intuitive atom-based score, which can be mapped onto the ligand and protein atoms. This allows the direct visualization of the score and consequently facilitates analysis of protein–ligand complexes during the lead optimization process. In this study, we validated our new scoring function by applying it in large-scale docking experiments. We could successfully predict the correct binding mode in 93% of complexes in redocking calculations on the Astex diverse set, while our performance in virtual screening experiments using the DUD dataset showed significant enrichment values with a mean AUC of 0.77 across all protein targets with little or no structural defects. As part of these studies, we also carried out a very detailed analysis of the data that revealed interesting pitfalls, which we highlight here and which should be addressed in future benchmark datasets.


Virtual screening Docking Protein–ligand interactions Binding affinity Scoring HYDE 



We thank the organizers of the Docking and Scoring Symposium for the arrangement of the very interesting session at the 241st ACS National Meeting. The HYDE project was funded by Bayer CropScience AG and Bayer Pharma AG. We also thank the whole team at the BioSolveIT GmbH for carrying out the elaborate computations for this study.

Supplementary material

10822_2011_9531_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (277 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 277 kb)


  1. 1.
    Kubinyi H (2001) In: Testa B, van de Waterbeemd H, Folkers G, Guy R (eds) Pharmacokinetic optimization in drug research, 1st edn. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bissantz C, Kuhn B, Stahl M (2010) A medicinal chemist’s guide to molecular interactions. J Med Chem 53(14):5061–5084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mobley DL, Dill KA (2009) Binding of small-molecule ligands to proteins: “What You See” is not always “What You Get”. Structure 17:489–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moitessier N, Englebienne P, Lee D, Lawandi J, Corbeil CR (2008) Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go. Br J Pharmacol 153:7–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gohlke H, Hendlich M, Klebe G (2000) Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein–ligand interactions. J Mol Biol 295:337–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Muegge I (2006) PMF scoring revisited. J Med Chem 49:5895–5902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Böhm HJ (1994) The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein–ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure. J Comput Aided Mol Design 8:243–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eldridge MD, Murray CW, Auton TR, Paolini GV, Mee RP (1997) Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes. J Comput Aided Mol Des 11:425–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friesner RA, Murphy RB, Repasky MP, Frye LL, Greenwood JR, Halgren TA et al (2006) Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein–ligand complexes. J Med Chem 49:6177–6196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Savage HJ, Elliott CJ, Freeman CM, Finney JL (1993) Lost hydrogen bonds and buried surface area: rationalising stability in globular proteins. J Chem Soc Faraday Trans 89:2609–2617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McDonald IK, Thornton JM (1994) Satisfying hydrogen bonding potential in proteins. J Mol Biol 238:777–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fleming PJ, Rose DG (2005) Do all backbone polar groups in proteins form hydrogen bonds? Protein Sci 14:1911–1917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pearlman DA, Rao BG, Charifson P (2008) FURSMASA: a new approach to rapid scoring functions that uses a MD-averaged potential energy grid and a solvent- accessible surface area term with parameters GA fit to experimental data. Proteins 71:1519–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hartshorn MJ, Verdonk ML, Chessari G, Brewerton SC, Mooij WTM, Mortonson PN, Murray CW (2007) Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein–ligand docking performance. J Med Chem 50(4):726–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T, Klebe G (1996) A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol 261:470–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    LeadIT (version 2.0.1) BioSolveIT GmbH, Sankt Augustin. Accessed 25 Aug 2011
  17. 17.
    Huang N, Shoichet B, Irwin JJ (2006) Benchmarking set for molecular docking. J Med Chem 49(23):6789–6801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Good AC, Oprea TI (2008) Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection? J Comput Aided Mol Des 22:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reulecke I, Lange G, Albrecht J, Klein R, Rarey M (2008) Towards an integrated description of hydrogen bonding and dehydration: reducing false positives in virtual screening using the HYDE scoring function. ChemMedChem 3(6):885–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hindle S, Rarey M, Buning C, Lengauer T (2002) Flexible docking under pharmacophore type constraints. J Comput Aided Mol Des 16(2):129–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lippert T, Rarey M (2009) Fast automated placement of polar hydrogen atoms in protein-ligand complexes. J Cheminformatics. doi: 10.1186/1758-2946-1-13
  22. 22.
    Hansch C, Leo A, Hoekman D (1995) Exploring QSAR. Hydrophobic, electronic, and steric constants. American Chemical Society, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lange G, Klein R, Albrecht J, Rarey M, Reulecke I (2010) European patent specification EP2084520Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Böhm HJ (1992) LUDI: rule-based automatic design of new substituents for enzyme inhibitor leads. J Comput Aided Mol Design 6:593–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eisenberg D, McLachlan AD (1986) Solvation energy in protein folding and binding. Nature 319:199–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weiner SJ, Kollman PA, Case DA, Singh UC, Ghio C, Alagona G, Profeta S, Weiner P (1984) A new force field for molecular mechanical simulation of nucleic acids and proteins. J Am Chem Soc 106(3):765–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fersht AR, Shi JP, Knill-Jones J, Lowe DM, Wilkinson AJ, Blow DM, Brick P, Carter P, Waye MMY, Winter G (1985) Hydrogen bonding and biological specificity analysed by protein engineering. Nature 314:235–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McComas CC, Crowley BM, Boger DL (2003) Partitioning the loss in vancomycin binding affinity for D-Ala-D-Lac into lost H-bond and repulsive lone pair contributions. J Am Chem Soc 125:9314–9315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Foloppe N, Fisher LM, Howes R, Kierstan P, Potter A, Robertson AGS, Surgenor AE (2005) Structure-based design of novel Chk1 inhibitors:# insights into hydrogen bonding and protein−ligand affinity. J Med Chem 48(13):4332–4345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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 285:1735–1747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    REDUCE (version 3.13) Richardson Laboratory, Duke University, North Carolina. Accessed 25 Aug 2011
  32. 32.
    Adams PD, Afonine PV, Bunkóczi G, Chen VB, Davis IW, Echols N, Headd JJ, Hung LW, Kapral GJ, Grosse-Kunstleve RW, McCoy AJ, Moriarty NW, Oeffner R, Read RJ, Richardson DC, Richardson JS, Terwilliger TC, Zwart PH (2010) PHENIX: a comprehensive Python-based system for macromolecular structure solution. Acta Crystallogr D 66:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    SZYBKI, OpenEye Scientific Software, Santa Fe. Accessed 25 Aug 2011
  34. 34.
    MOE Molecular Operating Environment (database version 2009.10) Chemical Computing Group, Montreal. Accessed 25 Aug 2011
  35. 35.
    LigPrep (Maestro v9.1) Schrödinger, New York. Accessed 25 Aug 2011
  36. 36.
    Seebeck B, Reulecke I, Kämper A, Rarey M (2008) Modeling of metal interaction geometries for protein-ligand docking. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinform 71:1237–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Urbaczek S, Kolodzik A, Fischer JR, Lippert T, Heuser S, Groth I, Schulz-Gasch T, Rarey M (2011) NAOMI—on the almost trivial task of reading molecules from different file formats. J Chem Inf Mod. doi: 10.1021/ci200324e
  38. 38.
    Kubinyi H (2006) In: Ekins S (ed) Computer applications in pharmaceutical research and development, 1st edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    MOE Molecular Operating Environment (version 2010.10) Chemical Computing Group, Montreal. Accessed 25 Aug 2011
  40. 40.
    Yeh KC, Kwan KC (1978) A comparison of numerical integrating algorithms by trapezoidal, lagrange, and spline approximation. J Pharmacokinet Phar 6:79–98Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Triballeau N, Acher F, Brabet I, Pin JP, Bertrand HO (2005) Virtual screening workflow development guided by the “Receiver Operating Characteristic” curve approach. Application to high-throughput docking on metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 4. J Med Chem 48:2534–2547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sintchak MD, Fleming MA, Futer O, Raybuck SA, Chambers SP, Caron PR, Murcko MA, Wilson KP (1996) Structure and mechanism of inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase in complex with the immunosuppressant mycophenolic acid. Cell 85:921–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Weber A, Casini A, Heine A, Kuhn D, Supuran CT, Scozzafava A, Klebe G (2004) Unexpected nanomolar inhibition of carbonic anhydrase by COX-2-selective celecoxib: new pharmacological opportunities due to related binding site recognition. J Med Chem 47:550–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stierand K, Rarey M (2010) Drawing the PDB—protein-ligand complexes in two dimensions. J Med Chem Lett 1:540–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bissantz C, Folkers G, Rognan D (2000) Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J Med Chem 43(25):4759–4767Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pérez-Pérez MJ, Priego EM, Hernández AI, Familiar O, Camarasa MJ, Negri A, Gago F, Balzarini J (2008) Structure, physiological role, and specific inhibitors of human thymidine kinase 2 (TK2): present and future. Med Res Rev 28:797–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Corsini A, Maggi FM, Catapano AL (1995) Pharmacology of competitive inhibitors of HMG-CoA reductase. Pharmacol Res 31(1):9–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wiley MR, Weir LC, Briggs S, Bryan NA, Buben J, Campbell C, Chirgadze NY, Conrad RC, Craft TJ, Ficorilli JV, Franciskovich JB, Froelich LL, Gifford-Moore DS, Goodson T, Herron DK, Klimkowski VJ, Kurz KD, Kyle JA, Masters JJ, Ratz AM, Milot G, Shuman RT, Smith T, Smith GF, Tebbe AL, Tinsley JM, Towner RD, Wilson A, Yee YK (2000) Structure-based design of potent, amidine-derived inhibitors of factor Xa: evaluation of selectivity, anticoagulant activity, and antithrombotic activity. J Med Chem 43(5):883–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Breault GA, Ellston RPA, Green S, James SR, Jewsbury PJ, Midgley CJ, Pauptit RA, Minshull CA, Tucker JA, Pease JE (2003) Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 inhibitors as a treatment for cancer. Part 2: identification and optimisation of substituted 2, 4-Bis Anilino Pyrimidines. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 13:2961–2969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gassel M, Breitenlechner CB, König N, Huber R, Engh RA, Bossemeyer D (2004) The protein kinase C inhibitor Bisindolyl Maleimide 2 binds with reversed orientations to different conformations of protein kinase A. J Biol Chem 279:23679–23690CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadine Schneider
    • 1
  • Sally Hindle
    • 2
  • Gudrun Lange
    • 3
  • Robert Klein
    • 3
  • Jürgen Albrecht
    • 3
  • Hans Briem
    • 4
  • Kristin Beyer
    • 5
  • Holger Claußen
    • 2
  • Marcus Gastreich
    • 2
  • Christian Lemmen
    • 2
  • Matthias Rarey
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Bioinformatics, University of HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.BioSolveIT GmbHSt. AugustinGermany
  3. 3.Bayer CropScience AGFrankfurt am MainGermany
  4. 4.Bayer Pharma AG, Global Drug DiscoveryBerlinGermany
  5. 5.Bayer Pharma AG, Global Drug DiscoveryWuppertalGermany

Personalised recommendations