Efficient Unbound Docking of Rigid Molecules

  • Dina Duhovny
  • Ruth Nussinov
  • Haim J. Wolfson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2452)


We present a new algorithm for unbound (real life) docking of molecules, whether protein-protein or protein-drug. The algorithm carries out rigid docking, with surface variability/flexibility implicitly addressed through liberal intermolecular penetration. The high efficiency of the algorithm is the outcome of several factors: (i) focusing initial molecular surface fitting on localized, curvature based surface patches; (ii) use of Geometric Hashing and Pose Clustering for initial transformation detection; (iii) accurate computation of shape complementarity utilizing the Distance Transform; (iv) efficient steric clash detection and geometric fit scoring based on a multi-resolution shape representation; and (v) utilization of biological information by focusing on hot spot rich surface patches. The algorithm has been implemented and applied to a large number of cases.


Surface Point Molecular Surface Protein Docking Steric Clash Docking Algorithm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C. Branden and J. Tooze. Introduction to Protein Structure. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York and London, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.C. Camacho, D.W. Gatchell, S.R. Kimura, and S. Vajda. Scoring docked conformations generated by rigid body protein-protein docking. PROTEINS: Structure, Function and Genetics, 40:525–537, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Chen and Z Weng. Docking unbound proteins using shape complementarity, desolvation, and electrostatics. PROTEINS: Structure, Function and Genetics, 47:281–294, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.L. Connolly. Analytical molecular surface calculation. J. Appl. Cryst., 16:548–558, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M.L. Connolly. Solvent-accessible surfaces of proteins and nucleic acids. Science, 221:709–713, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M.L. Connolly. Shape complementarity at the hemoglobin αβ1 subunit interface. Biopolymers, 25:1229–1247, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, and R. L. Rivest. Introduction to Algorithms, chapter 26. The MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. de Berg, M. van Kreveld, M. Overmars, and O. Schwarzkopf. Computational Geometry: Algorithms and Applications. Springer-Verlag, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T.J.A. Ewing, Makino S., Skillman A.G., and I.D. Kuntz. Dock 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J. Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 15:411–428, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Fischer, S. L. Lin, H.J. Wolfson, and R. Nussinov. A geometry-based suite of molecular docking processes. J. Mol. Biol., 248:459–477, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H.A. Gabb, R.M. Jackson, and J.E. Sternberg. Modelling protein docking using shape complementarity, electrostatics, and biochemical information. J. Mol. Biol., 272:106–120, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    E.J. Gardiner, P. Willett, and P.J. Artymiuk. Protein docking using a genetic algorithm. PROTEINS: Structure, Function and Genetics, 44:44–56, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    B.B. Goldman and W.T. Wipke. Molecular docking using quadratic shape descriptors (qsdock). PROTEINS: Structure, Function and Genetics, 38:79–94, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. Halperin, B. Ma, H. Wolfson, and R. Nussinov. Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. PROTEINS: Structure, Function and Genetics, 47:409–443, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Z. Hu, B. Ma, H.J Wolfson, and R. Nussinov. Conservation of polar residues as hot spots at protein-protein interfaces. PROTEINS: Structure, Function and Genetics, 39:331–342, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R.M. Jackson. Comparison of protein-protein interactions in serine protease-inhibitor and antibody-antigen complexes: Implications for the protein docking problem. Protein Science, 8:603–613, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    F. Jiang and S.H. Kim. Soft docking: Matching of molecular surface cubes. J. Mol. Biol., 219:79–102, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Jones, P. Willet, R. Glen, and Leach. A.R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J. Mol. Biol., 267:727–748, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. Katchalski-Katzir, I. Shariv, M. Eisenstein, A.A. Friesem, C. Aflalo, and I.A. Vakser. Molecular Surface Recognition: Determination of Geometric Fit between Protein and their Ligands by Correlation Techniques. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 89:2195–2199, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    I.D. Kuntz, J.M. Blaney, S.J. Oatley, R. Langridge, and T.E. Ferrin. A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol., 161:269–288, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    H.P. Lenhof. Parallel protein puzzle: A new suite of protein docking tools. In Proc. of the First Annual International Conference on Computational Molecular Biology RECOMB 97, pages 182–191, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. L. Lin, R. Nussinov, D. Fischer, and H.J. Wolfson. Molecular surface representation by sparse critical points. PROTEINS: Structure, Function and Genetics, 18:94–101, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. Norel, S. L. Lin, H.J. Wolfson, and R. Nussinov. Shape complementarity at protein-protein interfaces. Biopolymers, 34:933–940, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. Norel, S. L. Lin, H.J. Wolfson, and R. Nussinov. Molecular surface complementarity at protein-protein interfaces: The critical role played by surface normals at well placed, sparse points in docking. J. Mol. Biol., 252:263–273, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. Norel, D. Petrey, H.J. Wolfson, and R. Nussinov. Examination of shape complementarity in docking of unbound proteins. PROTEINS: Structure, Function and Genetics, 35:403–419, 1999.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    P.N. Palma, L. Krippahl, J.E. Wampler, and J.G Moura. Bigger: A new (soft)docking algorithm for predicting protein interactions. PROTEINS: Structure, Function and Genetics, 39:372–384, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. Rarey, B. Kramer, and Lengauer T. Time-efficient docking of flexible ligands into active sites of proteins. In 3’rd Int. Conf. on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB’95), pages 300–308, Cambridge, UK, 1995. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    B. Sandak, H.J. Wolfson, and R. Nussinov. Flexible docking allowing induced fit in proteins. PROTEINS: Structure, Function and Genetics, 32:159–174, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. Stockman. Object recognition and localization via pose clustering. J. of Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 40(3):361–387, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    I.A. Vakser. Protein docking for low resolution structures. Protein Engineering, 8:371–377, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    I.A. Vakser. Main chain complementarity in protein recognition. Protein Engineering, 9:741–744, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    I.A. Vakser, O.G. Matar, and C.F. Lam. A systematic study of low resolution recognition in protein-protein complexes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 96:8477–8482, 1999.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    P.H. Walls and J.E. Sternberg. New algorithms to model protein-protein recognition based on surface complementarity; applications to antibody-antigen docking. J. Mol. Biol., 228:227–297, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    H.J. Wolfson and I. Rigoutsos. Geometric hashing: An overview. IEEE Computational Science and Eng., 11:263–278, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dina Duhovny
    • 1
  • Ruth Nussinov
    • 2
    • 3
  • Haim J. Wolfson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Sackler Inst. of Molecular Medicine, Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityIsrael
  3. 3.IRSP - SAICLab. of Experimental and Computational Biology, NCI - FCRDCFrederickUSA

Personalised recommendations