Docking of small molecules to farnesoid X receptors using AutoDock Vina with the Convex-PL potential: lessons learned from D3R Grand Challenge 2
- 450 Downloads
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.
KeywordsProtein–ligand docking Ensemble docking Flexible docking D3R Scoring function
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).
- 5.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):1022–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.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DO, Kranz M, Elkins PA, Cui G, Peishoff CE, Lambert MH, Dunbar JB Jr (2016) CSAR 2014: a benchmark exercise using unpublished data from pharma.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):1063–1077Google Scholar
- 34.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–D281Google Scholar
- 36.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):455–461Google Scholar
- 38.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
- 45.Schrödinger, LLC: The PyMOL molecular graphics system, version 1.3 (2011)Google Scholar
- 46.Sigma-Aldrich Amino Acids Reference Chart. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/life-science/metabolomics/learning-center/amino-acid-reference-chart.html
- 47.Landrum G Rdkit: open-source cheminformatics. http://www.rdkit.org
- 48.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):1134–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar