Lessons learned from participating in D3R 2016 Grand Challenge 2: compounds targeting the farnesoid X receptor
- 293 Downloads
D3R 2016 Grand Challenge 2 focused on predictions of binding modes and affinities for 102 compounds against the farnesoid X receptor (FXR). In this challenge, two distinct methods, a docking-based method and a template-based method, were employed by our team for the binding mode prediction. For the new template-based method, 3D ligand similarities were calculated for each query compound against the ligands in the co-crystal structures of FXR available in Protein Data Bank. The binding mode was predicted based on the co-crystal protein structure containing the ligand with the best ligand similarity score against the query compound. For the FXR dataset, the template-based method achieved a better performance than the docking-based method on the binding mode prediction. For the binding affinity prediction, an in-house knowledge-based scoring function ITScore2 and MM/PBSA approach were employed. Good performance was achieved for MM/PBSA, whereas the performance of ITScore2 was sensitive to ligand composition, e.g. the percentage of carbon atoms in the compounds. The sensitivity to ligand composition could be a clue for the further improvement of our knowledge-based scoring function.
KeywordsD3R Drug Design Data Resource Molecular docking Scoring function Ligand similarity Template-based Binding mode prediction Binding affinity prediction Drug discovery
Support to XZ from OpenEye Scientific Software Inc. (Santa Fe, NM, http://www.eyesopen.com) is gratefully acknowledged. This work was supported by the NSF CAREER Award DBI-0953839, NIH R01GM109980, and American Heart Association (Midwest Affiliate) 13GRNT16990076 to XZ. The computations were performed on the high performance computing infrastructure supported by NSF CNS-1429294 (PI: Chi-Ren Shyu) and the HPC resources supported by the University of Missouri Bioinformatics Consortium (UMBC).
- 1.Gathiaka S, Liu S, Chiu M, Yang H, Stuckey JA, Kang YN, Delproposto J, Kubish G, Dunbar JB Jr, Carlson HA, Burley SK, Walters WP, Amaro RE, Feher VA, Gilson MK (2016) D3R Grand Challenge 2015: evaluation of protein-ligand pose and affinity predictions. J Comput Aided Mol Des 30:651–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Lu W, Liu X, Cao X, Xue M, Liu K, Zhao Z, Shen X, Jiang H, Xu Y, Huang J, Li H (2011) SHAFTS: a hybrid approach for 3D molecular similarity calculation. 2. Prospective case study in the discovery of diverse P90 ribosomal S6 protein kinase 2 inhibitors to suppress cell migration. J Med Chem 54:3564–3574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Willett P, Barnard JM, Downs GM (1998) Chemical similarity searching. J Chem Inf Model 38:983–996Google Scholar
- 19.Kollman PA, Massova I, Reyes C, Kuhn B, Huo S, Chong L, Lee M, Lee T, Duan Y, Wang W, Donini O, Cieplak P, Srinivasan J, Case DA, Cheatham TE (2000) Calculating structures and free energies of complex molecules: combining molecular mechanics and continuum models. Acc Chem Res 33:889–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.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
- 24.Case DA, Darden TA, Cheatham TE III, Simmerling CL, Wang J, Duke RE, Luo R, Walker RC, Zhang W, Merz KM, Roberts B, Wang B, Hayik S, Roitberg A, Seabra G, Kolossváry I, Wong KF, Paesani F, Vanicek J, Liu J, Wu X, Brozell SR, Steinbrecher T, Gohlke H, Cai Q, Ye X, Wang J, Hsieh MJ, Cui G, Roe DR, Mathews DH, Seetin MG, Sagui C, Babin V, Luchko T, Gusarov S, Kovalenko A, Kollman PA (2010) AMBER 11. University of California, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- 26.Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, Scalmani G, Barone V, Mennucci B, Petersson GA, Nakatsuji H, Caricato M, Li X, Hratchian HP, Izmaylov AF, Bloino J, Zheng G, Sonnenberg JL, Hada M, Ehara M, Toyota K, Fukuda R, Hasegawa J, Ishida M, Nakajima T, Honda Y, Kitao O, Nakai H, Vreven T, Montgomery JA Jr, Peralta JE, Ogliaro F, Bearpark M, Heyd JJ, Brothers E, Kudin KN, Staroverov VN, Kobayashi R, Normand J, Raghavachari K, Rendell A, Burant JC, Iyengar SS, Tomasi J, Cossi M, Rega N, Millam JM, Klene M, Knox JE, Cross JB, Bakken V, Adamo C, Jaramillo J, Gomperts R, Stratmann RE, Yazyev O, Austin AJ, Cammi R, Pomelli C, Ochterski JW, Martin RL, Morokuma K, Zakrzewski VG, Voth GA, Salvador P, Dannenberg JJ, Dapprich S, Daniels AD, Farkas Ö, Foresman JB, Ortiz JV, Cioslowski J, Fox DJ (2009) Gaussian 09, revision D.01. Gaussian, Inc., WallingfordGoogle Scholar
- 28.Duan Y, Wu C, Chowdhury S, Lee MC, Xiong G, Zhang W, Yang R, Cieplak P, Luo R, Lee T, Caldwell J, Wang J, Kollman P (2003) A point-charge force field for molecular mechanics simulations of proteins based on condensed-phase quantum mechanical calculations. J Comput Chem 24:1999–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar