Abstract
The 2016 D3R Grand Challenge 2 provided an opportunity to test multiple protein–ligand docking protocols on a set of ligands bound to farnesoid X receptor that has many available experimental structures. We participated in the Stage 1 of the Challenge devoted to the docking pose predictions, with the mean RMSD value of our submission poses of 2.9 Å. Here we present a thorough analysis of our docking predictions made with AutoDock Vina and the Convex-PL rescoring potential by reproducing our submission protocol and running a series of additional molecular docking experiments. We conclude that a correct receptor structure, or more precisely, the structure of the binding pocket, plays the crucial role in the success of our docking studies. We have also noticed the important role of a local ligand geometry, which seems to be not well discussed in literature. We succeed to improve our results up to the mean RMSD value of 2.15–2.33 Å dependent on the models of the ligands, if docking these to all available homologous receptors. Overall, for docking of ligands of diverse chemical series we suggest to perform docking of each of the ligands to a set of multiple receptors that are homologous to the target.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Residue numbers are given with respect to the 3rvf receptor and may differ slightly for other proteins. The corresponding apoprotein residues are Ala346, Ala354, Ala459.
References
Damm-Ganamet KL, Smith RD, Dunbar JB Jr, Stuckey JA, Carlson HA (2013) CSAR benchmark exercise 2011–2012: evaluation of results from docking and relative ranking of blinded congeneric series. J Chem Inf Model 53(8):1853–1870
Smith RD, Dunbar JB Jr, Ung PMU, Esposito EX, Yang CY, Wang S, Carlson HA (2011) CSAR benchmark exercise of 2010: combined evaluation across all submitted scoring functions. J Chem Inf Model 51(9):2115–2131
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(9):791–804
Grudinin S, Popov P, Neveu E, Cheremovskiy G (2015) Predicting binding poses and affinities in the CSAR 2013–2014 docking exercises using the knowledge-based Convex-PL potential. J Chem Inf Model 56(6):1053–1062
Smith RD, Damm-Ganamet KL, Dunbar JB Jr, Ahmed A, Chinnaswamy K, Delproposto JE, Kubish GM, Tinberg CE, Khare SD, Dou J et al (2015) CSAR benchmark exercise 2013: evaluation of results from a combined computational protein design, docking, and scoring/ranking challenge. J Chem Inf Model 56(6):1022–1031
Carlson HA, Smith RD, Damm-Ganamet KL, Stuckey JA, Ahmed A, Convery MA, Somers DO, Kranz M, Elkins PA, Cui G, Peishoff CE, Lambert MH, Dunbar JB Jr (2016) CSAR 2014: a benchmark exercise using unpublished data from pharma. J Chem Inf Model 56(6):1063–1077
Gathiaka S, Liu S, Chiu M, Yang H, Stuckey JA, Kang YN, Delproposto J, Kubish G, Dunbar JB, Carlson HA et al (2016) D3R grand challenge 2015: evaluation of protein-ligand pose and affinity predictions. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 30(9):651–668
Hogues H, Sulea T, Purisima EO (2015) Evaluation of the Wilma-SIE virtual screening method in community structure-activity resource 2013 and 2014 blind challenges. J Chem Inf Model 56(6):955–964
Huang SY, Li M, Wang J, Pan Y (2015) Hybriddock: a hybrid protein-ligand docking protocol integrating protein-and ligand-based approaches. J Chem Inf Model 56(6):1078–1087
Kumar A, Zhang KY (2015) Application of shape similarity in pose selection and virtual screening in CSARdock2014 exercise. J Chem Inf Model 56(6):965–973
Kumar A, Zhang KY (2016) Prospective evaluation of shape similarity based pose prediction method in D3R grand challenge 2015. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 30(9):685–693
Martiny VY, Martz F, Selwa E, Iorga BI (2015) Blind pose prediction, scoring, and affinity ranking of the CSAR 2014 dataset. J Chem Inf Model 56(6):996–1003
Piotto S, Di Biasi L, Fino R, Parisi R, Sessa L et al (2016) Yada: a novel tool for molecular docking calculations. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 30(9):753–759
Prathipati P, Mizuguchi K (2015) Integration of ligand and structure based approaches for CSAR-2014. J Chem Inf Model 56(6):974–987
Prathipati P, Nagao C, Ahmad S, Mizuguchi K (2016) Improved pose and affinity predictions using different protocols tailored on the basis of data availability. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 30(9):817–828
Salmaso V, Sturlese M, Cuzzolin A, Moro S (2016) Dockbench as docking selector tool: the lesson learned from D3R grand challenge 2015. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 30(9):773–789
Shin WH, Lee GR, Seok C (2015) Evaluation of galaxydock based on the community structure-activity resource 2013 and 2014 benchmark studies. J Chem Inf Model 56(6):988–995
Slynko I, Da Silva F, Bret G, Rognan D (2016) Docking pose selection by interaction pattern graph similarity: application to the D3R grand challenge 2015. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 30(9):669–683
Sunseri J, Ragoza M, Collins J, Koes DR (2016) A D3R prospective evaluation of machine learning for protein-ligand scoring. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 30(9):761–771
Yan C, Grinter SZ, Merideth BR, Ma Z, Zou X (2015) 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(6):1013–1021
Zhu X, Shin WH, Kim H, Kihara D (2015) Combined approach of patch-surfer and PL-patchsurfer for protein-ligand binding prediction in CSAR 2013 and 2014. J Chem Inf Model 56(6):1088–1099
Fourches D, Muratov E, Ding F, Dokholyan NV, Tropsha A (2013) Predicting binding affinity of CSAR ligands using both structure-based and ligand-based approaches. J Chem Inf Model 53(8):1915–1922
Politi R, Convertino M, Popov K, Dokholyan NV, Tropsha A (2016) Docking and scoring with target-specific pose classifier succeeds in native-like pose identification but not binding affinity prediction in the CSAR 2014 benchmark exercise. J Chem Inf Model 56(6):1032–1041
Fourches D, Politi R, Tropsha A (2014) Target-specific native/decoy pose classifier improves the accuracy of ligand ranking in the CSAR 2013 benchmark. J Chem Inf Model 55(1):63–71
Santos-Martins D (2016) Interaction with specific HSP90 residues as a scoring function: validation in the D3R grand challenge 2015. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 30(9):731–742
Deng N, Flynn WF, Xia J, Vijayan R, Zhang B, He P, Mentes A, Gallicchio E, Levy RM (2016) Large scale free energy calculations for blind predictions of protein-ligand binding: the D3R grand challenge 2015. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 30(9):743–751
Ignjatović MM, Caldararu O, Dong G, Muñoz-Gutierrez C, Adasme-Carreño F, Ryde U (2016) Binding-affinity predictions of HSP90 in the D3R grand challenge 2015 with docking, mm/gbsa, qm/mm, and free-energy simulations. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 30(9):707–730
Mey AS, Juárez-Jiménez J, Hennessy A, Michel J (2016) Blinded predictions of binding modes and energies of HSP90-\(\alpha\) ligands for the 2015 D3R grand challenge. Bioorg Med Chem 24(20):4890–4899
Ruiz-Carmona S, Barril X (2016) Docking-undocking combination applied to the D3R grand challenge 2015. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 30(9):805–815
Baumgartner MP, Camacho CJ (2015) Choosing the optimal rigid receptor for docking and scoring in the CSAR 2013/2014 experiment. J Chem Inf Model 56(6):1004–1012
Selwa E, Martiny VY, Iorga BI (2016) Molecular docking performance evaluated on the D3R grand challenge 2015 drug-like ligand datasets. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 30(9):829–839
Ye Z, Baumgartner MP, Wingert BM, Camacho CJ (2016) Optimal strategies for virtual screening of induced-fit and flexible target in the 2015 D3R grand challenge. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 30(9):695–706
Nedumpully-Govindan P, Jemec DB, Ding F (2015) CSAR benchmark of flexible medusadock in affinity prediction and nativelike binding pose selection. J Chem Inf Model 56(6):1042–1052
Rose PW, Prlić A, Altunkaya A, Bi C, Bradley AR, Christie CH, Di Costanzo L, Duarte JM, Dutta S, Feng Z et al (2017) The RCSB protein data bank: integrative view of protein, gene and 3D structural information. Nucleic Acids Res 45(D1):D271–D281
O’Boyle NM, Banck M, James CA, Morley C, Vandermeersch T, Hutchison GR (2011) OpenBabel: an open chemical toolbox. J Cheminform 3:33
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(2):455–461
Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, Sanner MF, Belew RK, Goodsell DS, Olson AJ (2009) AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem 30(16):2785–2791
Kadukova M, Grudinin S (2017) Convex-PL: a novel knowledge-based potential for protein–ligand interactions deduced from structural databases using convex optimization. J Comput-Aided Mol Des. doi:10.1007/s10822-017-0068-8
Kadukova M, Grudinin S (2016) Knodle: a support vector machines-based automatic perception of organic molecules from 3D coordinates. J Chem Inf Model 56(8):1410–1419
Halgren TA (1996) Merck molecular force field. I. Basis, form, scope, parameterization, and performance of MMFF94. J Comput Chem 17(5–6):490–519
Hanwell MD, Curtis DE, Lonie DC, Vandermeersch T, Zurek E, Hutchison GR (2012) Avogadro: an advanced semantic chemical editor, visualization, and analysis platform. J Cheminform 4(1):17
Rappé AK, Casewit CJ, Colwell K, Goddard Iii W, Skiff W (1992) UFF, a full periodic table force field for molecular mechanics and molecular dynamics simulations. J Am Chem Soc 114(25):10024–10035
Boratyn GM, Schäffer AA, Agarwala R, Altschul SF, Lipman DJ, Madden TL (2012) Domain enhanced lookup time accelerated blast. Biol Direct 7(1):12
Krivov GG, Shapovalov MV, Dunbrack RL (2009) Improved prediction of protein side-chain conformations with SCWRL4. Proteins 77(4):778–795
Schrödinger, LLC: The PyMOL molecular graphics system, version 1.3 (2011)
Sigma-Aldrich Amino Acids Reference Chart. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/life-science/metabolomics/learning-center/amino-acid-reference-chart.html
Landrum G Rdkit: open-source cheminformatics. http://www.rdkit.org
Richter HG, Benson G, Bleicher K, Blum D, Chaput E, Clemann N, Feng S, Gardes C, Grether U, Hartman P et al (2011) Optimization of a novel class of benzimidazole-based farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonists to improve physicochemical and adme properties. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 21(4):1134–1140
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Vladimir Chupin from MIPT Moscow for helpful discussions during the development of the Convex-PL potential. The authors also thank Andreas Eisenbarth from the University of Kaiserslautern for the development of docking protocols. This work was partially supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (No. 6.3157.2017/PP).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kadukova, M., Grudinin, S. Docking of small molecules to farnesoid X receptors using AutoDock Vina with the Convex-PL potential: lessons learned from D3R Grand Challenge 2. J Comput Aided Mol Des 32, 151–162 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-017-0062-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-017-0062-1