Advertisement

Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 225–230 | Cite as

Protein–ligand docking using FFT based sampling: D3R case study

  • Dzmitry Padhorny
  • David R. HallEmail author
  • Hanieh Mirzaei
  • Artem B. Mamonov
  • Mohammad Moghadasi
  • Andrey Alekseenko
  • Dmitri BeglovEmail author
  • Dima KozakovEmail author
Article

Abstract

Fast Fourier transform (FFT) based approaches have been successful in application to modeling of relatively rigid protein–protein complexes. Recently, we have been able to adapt the FFT methodology to treatment of flexible protein–peptide interactions. Here, we report our latest attempt to expand the capabilities of the FFT approach to treatment of flexible protein–ligand interactions in application to the D3R PL-2016-1 challenge. Based on the D3R assessment, our FFT approach in conjunction with Monte Carlo minimization off-grid refinement was among the top performing methods in the challenge. The potential advantage of our method is its ability to globally sample the protein–ligand interaction landscape, which will be explored in further applications.

Keywords

Drug design data resource D3R FFT sampling Protein ligand docking 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Grants NSF CCF AF 1527292, NIH R43 GM109555, RSF No 14-11-00877.

References

  1. 1.
    Kozakov D, Brenke R, Comeau SR, Vajda S (2006) PIPER: an FFT-based protein docking program with pairwise potentials. Proteins 65:392–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gabb HA, Jackson RM, Sternberg MJ (1997) Modelling protein docking using shape complementarity, electrostatics and biochemical information. J Mol Biol 272:106–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ritchie DW, Kemp GJ (2000) Protein docking using spherical polar Fourier correlations. Proteins 39:178–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tovchigrechko A, Vakser IA (2006) GRAMM-X public web server for protein-protein docking. Nucleic Acids Res 34:W310–W314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen R, Li L, Weng Z (2003) ZDOCK: an initial-stage protein-docking algorithm. Proteins 52:80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lensink MF, Velankar S, Wodak SJ (2017) Modeling protein-protein and protein-peptide complexes: CAPRI 6th edition. Proteins 85:359–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lensink MF, Wodak SJ (2013) Docking, scoring, and affinity prediction in CAPRI. Proteins 81:2082–2095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lensink MF, Wodak SJ (2010) Docking and scoring protein interactions: CAPRI 2009. Proteins 78:3073–3084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Porter KA, Xia B, Beglov D, Bohnuud T, Alam N, Schueler-Furman O, Kozakov D (2017) ClusPro PeptiDock: efficient global docking of peptide recognition motifs using FFT. Bioinformatics. doi:  10.1093/bioinformatics/btx216 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Boyle NM, Vandermeersch T, Flynn CJ, Maguire AR, Hutchison GR (2011) Confab—systematic generation of diverse low-energy conformers. J Cheminform 3:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mamonov AB, Moghadasi M, Mirzaei H, Zarbafian S, Grove LE, Bohnuud T, Vakili P, Ch Paschalidis I, Vajda S, Kozakov D (2016) Focused grid-based resampling for protein docking and mapping. J Comput Chem 37:961–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moghadasi M, Mirzaei H, Mamonov A, Vakili P, Vajda S, Paschalidis IC, Kozakov D (2015) The impact of side-chain packing on protein docking refinement. J Chem Inf Model 55:872–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mirzaei H, Zarbafian S, Villar E, Mottarella S, Beglov D, Vajda S, Paschalidis IC, Vakili P, Kozakov D (2015) Energy minimization on manifolds for docking flexible molecules. J Chem Theory Comput 11:1063–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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 31:455–461Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huggins DJ, Tidor B (2011) Systematic placement of structural water molecules for improved scoring of protein-ligand interactions. Protein Eng Des Sel 24:777–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kozakov D, Beglov D, Bohnuud T, Mottarella SE, Xia B, Hall DR, Vajda S (2013) How good is automated protein docking? Proteins 81:2159–2166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chuang G-Y, Kozakov D, Brenke R, Comeau SR, Vajda S (2008) DARS (Decoys As the Reference State) potentials for protein-protein docking. Biophys J 95:4217–4227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meiler J, Baker D (2006) ROSETTALIGAND: protein-small molecule docking with full side-chain flexibility. Proteins 65:538–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shapovalov MV, Dunbrack RL Jr (2011) A smoothed backbone-dependent rotamer library for proteins derived from adaptive kernel density estimates and regressions. Structure 19:844–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grudinin S, Kadukova M, Eisenbarth A, Marillet S, Cazals F (2016) Predicting binding poses and affinities for protein–ligand complexes in the 2015 D3R Grand Challenge using a physical model with a statistical parameter estimation. J Comput Aided Mol Des 30:791–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yan C, Grinter SZ, Merideth BR, Ma Z, Zou X (2016) Iterative knowledge-based scoring functions derived from rigid and flexible decoy structures: evaluation with the 2013 and 2014 CSAR benchmarks. J Chem Inf Model 56:1013–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ballester PJ, Schreyer A, Blundell TL (2014) Does a more precise chemical description of protein–ligand complexes lead to more accurate prediction of binding affinity? J Chem Inf Model 54:944–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang C, Zhang Y (2017) Improving scoring-docking-screening powers of protein-ligand scoring functions using random forest. J Comput Chem 38:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Debroise T, Shakhnovich EI, Chéron N (2017) A hybrid knowledge-based and empirical scoring function for protein-ligand interaction: SMoG2016. J Chem Inf Model 57:584–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pires DEV, Ascher DB (2016) CSM-lig: a web server for assessing and comparing protein-small molecule affinities. Nucleic Acids Res 44:W557–W561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cheng T, Li X, Li Y, Liu Z, Wang R (2009) Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set. J Chem Inf Model 49:1079–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li Y, Liu Z, Li J, Han L, Liu J, Zhao Z, Wang R (2014) Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 1. Compilation of the test set. J Chem Inf Model 54:1700–1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Mathematics and StatisticsStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA
  2. 2.Laufer Center for Physical and Quantitative BiologyStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA
  3. 3.Acpharis Inc.HollistonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biomedical EngineeringBoston UniversityBostonUSA
  5. 5.Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (State University)Dolgoprudny, Moscow OblastRussia
  6. 6.Institute of Computer Aided Design of the Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations