Abstract
Molecular docking is a well-established computational technique that aims to predict how a ligand binds to a specific protein target, as well as to assess the strength of the binding. Although docking programs are used worldwide for drug discovery, it is not always simple to identify which program or combination of programs provides the best results for a target of interest. Here we present DockBox, a computational package designed to facilitate the use of multiple docking and scoring programs allowing to combine them using different consensus strategies. As part of the DockBox package, a new consensus docking method called score-based consensus docking (SBCD) is introduced. SBCD was found to significantly improve the pose prediction success rates of single docking programs. When applied to virtual screening, SBCD enhanced enrichment factors while producing higher hit rates than standard consensus docking (CD). SBCD can be run with almost no additional computational cost and time compared to CD, if the same docking programs are used for pose generation. Furthermore, SBCD allows the use of many scoring functions to assess consensus without significant overhead, making it a promising new approach for the screening of large chemical libraries. DockBox is an open-source package publicly available at https://pypi.org/project/dockbox.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Preto J, Gentile F, Winter P et al (2018) Molecular dynamics and related computational methods with applications to drug discovery. In: Bonilla LL, Kaxiras E, Melnik R (eds) Coupled mathematical models for physical and biological nanoscale systems and their applications. Springer, Cham, pp 267–285
Morris GM, Lim-Wilby M (2008) Molecular Docking. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.). Humana Press, Totowa, pp 365–382
Sliwoski G, Kothiwale S, Meiler J, Lowe EW (2014) Computational methods in drug discovery. Pharmacol Rev 66:334–395. https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.112.007336
Ferreira L, dos Santos R, Oliva G, Andricopulo A (2015) Molecular docking and structure-based drug design strategies. Molecules 20:13384–13421. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules200713384
Friedman R, Caflisch A (2009) Discovery of plasmepsin inhibitors by fragment-based docking and consensus scoring. ChemMedChem 4:1317–1326. https://doi.org/10.1002/cmdc.200900078
Caporuscio F, Rastelli G, Imbriano C, Del Rio A (2011) Structure-based design of potent aromatase inhibitors by high-throughput docking. J Med Chem 54:4006–4017. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm2000689
Roughley S, Wright L, Brough P et al (2012) Hsp90 inhibitors and drugs from fragment and virtual screening. Top Curr Chem 317:61–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/128-2011-181
Ban F, Dalal K, Li H et al (2017) Best practices of computer-aided drug discovery: lessons learned from the development of a preclinical candidate for prostate cancer with a new mechanism of action. J Chem Inf Model 57:1018–1028. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00137
Budzik B, Garzya V, Shi D et al (2010) Novel N-substituted benzimidazolones as potent, selective, CNS-penetrant, and orally active M1mAChR agonists. ACS Med Chem Lett 1:244–248. https://doi.org/10.1021/ml100105x
Elmenoufy AH, Gentile F, Jay D et al (2019) Targeting DNA Repair in Tumor Cells via Inhibition of ERCC1–XPF. J Med Chem 62:7684–7696. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.9b00326
Miller Z, Kim K-S, Lee D-M et al (2015) Proteasome inhibitors with pyrazole scaffolds from structure-based virtual screening. J Med Chem 58:2036–2041. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm501344n
Kolb P, Irwin JJ (2009) Docking screens: right for the right reasons? Curr Top Med Chem 9:755–770
Deng N, Forli S, He P et al (2015) Distinguishing binders from false positives by free energy calculations: fragment screening against the flap site of HIV protease. J Phys Chem B 119:976–988. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp506376z
Ferreira RS, Simeonov A, Jadhav A et al (2010) Complementarity between a docking and a high-throughput screen in discovering new cruzain inhibitors. J Med Chem 53:4891–4905. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm100488w
Wong CF (2015) Flexible receptor docking for drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discov 10:1189–1200. https://doi.org/10.1517/17460441.2015.1078308
Rueda M, Bottegoni G, Abagyan R (2010) Recipes for the selection of experimental protein conformations for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 50:186–193. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci9003943
Amaro RE, Baudry J, Chodera J et al (2018) Ensemble docking in drug discovery. Biophys J 114:2271–2278. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BPJ.2018.02.038
Houston DR, Walkinshaw MD (2013) Consensus docking: improving the reliability of docking in a virtual screening context. J Chem Inf Model 53:384–390. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci300399w
Tuccinardi T, Poli G, Romboli V et al (2014) Extensive consensus docking evaluation for ligand pose prediction and virtual screening studies. J Chem Inf Model 54:2980–2986. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci500424n
Wang R, Wang S (2002) How does consensus scoring work for virtual library screening? An idealized computer experiment. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 41:1422–1426. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci010025x
Feher M (2006) Consensus scoring for protein-ligand interactions. Drug Discov Today 11:421–428
Li Y, Liu Z, Li J et al (2014) Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 1. Compilation of the test set. J Chem Inf Model 54:1700–1716. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci500080q
Mysinger MM, Carchia M, Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK (2012) Directory of useful decoys, enhanced (DUD-E): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking. J Med Chem 55:6582–6594. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm300687e
Zhao Z, Liu J, Wang R et al (2014) PDB-wide collection of binding data: current status of the PDBbind database. Bioinformatics 31:405–412. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu626
Case D., Berryman JT, Betz RM, et al (2015) Amber 15. In: Univ. California, San Fr. http://ambermd.org/. Accessed 31 Oct 2015
Maier JA, Martinez C, Kasavajhala K et al (2015) ff14SB: improving the Accuracy of protein side chain and backbone parameters from ff99SB. J Chem Theory Comput 11:3696–3713. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00255
Wang J, Wolf RM, Caldwell JW et al (2004) Development and testing of a general amber force field. J Comput Chem 25:1157–1174. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20035
Gasteiger J, Marsili M (1980) Iterative partial equalization of orbital electronegativity—a rapid access to atomic charges. Tetrahedron 36:3219–3228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-4020(80)80168-2
Wang J, Wang W, Kollmann P, Case D (2005) Antechamber, an accessory software package for molecular mechanical calculation. J Comput Chem 25:1157–1174
Li P, Song LF, Merz KM (2015) Systematic parameterization of monovalent ions employing the nonbonded model. J Chem Theory Comput 11:1645–1657. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct500918t
Salomon-Ferrer R, Götz AW, Poole D et al (2013) Routine microsecond molecular dynamics simulations with AMBER on GPUs. 2. Explicit solvent particle mesh Ewald. J Chem Theory Comput 9:3878–3888. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct400314y
Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W et al (2009) AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem 30:2785–2791. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21256
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 31:455–461. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21334
Balius TE, Mukherjee S, Rizzo RC (2011) Implementation and evaluation of a docking-rescoring method using molecular footprint comparisons. J Comput Chem 32:2273–2289. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21814
Neudert G, Klebe G (2011) DSX: a knowledge-based scoring function for the assessment of protein–ligand complexes. J Chem Inf Model 51:2731–2745. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci200274q
Chemical Computing Group Inc. Montreal, QC, Canada (2015) Molecular Operating Environment 2015 (MOE 2015)
Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB et al (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 47:1739–1749. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm0306430
Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC et al (1997) Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J Mol Biol 267:727–748. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1996.0897
Schrödinger LLC (2019) Small-molecule drug discovery Suite 2019-1
Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Halliday RS et al (1998) Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J Comput Chem 19:1639–1662. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(19981115)19:14%3c1639:AID-JCC10%3e3.0.CO;2-B
Shao J, Tanner SW, Thompson N, Cheatham TE (2007) Clustering molecular dynamics trajectories: 1. Characterizing the performance of different clustering algorithms. J Chem Theory Comput 3:2312–2334. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct700119m
Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A et al (2012) Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res 12:2825–2830
Pearlman DA, Charifson PS (2001) Are free energy calculations useful in practice? A comparison with rapid scoring functions for the p38 MAP kinase protein system. J Med Chem 44:3417–3423. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm0100279
Saladino G, Gauthier L, Bianciotto M, Gervasio FL (2012) Assessing the performance of metadynamics and path variables in predicting the binding free energies of p38 inhibitors. J Chem Theory Comput 8:1165–1170. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct3001377
Cheng T, Li X, Li Y et al (2009) Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set. J Chem Inf Model 49:1079–1093. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci9000053
Wang Z, Sun H, Yao X et al (2016) Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power. Phys Chem Chem Phys 18:12964–12975. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6cp01555g
Luccarelli J, Michel J, Tirado-Rives J, Jorgensen WL (2010) Effects of water placement on predictions of binding affinities for p38α MAP kinase inhibitors. J Chem Theory Comput 6:3850–3856. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct100504h
Wu HJ, Ho CW, Ko TP et al (2010) Structural basis of α-fucosidase inhibition by iminocyclitols with Ki values in the micro- to picomolar range. Angew Chemie - Int Ed 49:337–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.200905597
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge support from the PSMN (Pôle Scientifique de Modélisation Numérique) of the ENS de Lyon for the computing resources. We also warmly thank Prof. Jack Tuszynski and Mr. Philip Winter for providing useful comments and proofreading the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Preto, J., Gentile, F. Assessing and improving the performance of consensus docking strategies using the DockBox package. J Comput Aided Mol Des 33, 817–829 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-019-00227-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-019-00227-7