A Self-adaptive Local Search Coordination in Multimeme Memetic Algorithm for Molecular Docking

  • Pablo Felipe Leonhart
  • Pedro Henrique Narloch
  • Márcio DornEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11538)


Molecular Docking is a methodology that deals with the problem of predicting the non-covalent binding of a receptor and a ligand at an atomic level to form a stable complex. Because the search space of possible conformations is vast, molecular docking is classified in computational complexity theory as a NP-hard problem. Because of the high complexity, exact methods are not efficient and several metaheuristics have been proposed. However, these methods are very dependent on parameter settings and search mechanism definitions, which requires approaches able to self-adapt these configurations along the optimization process. We proposed and developed a novel self-adaptive coordination of local search operators in a Multimeme Memetic Algorithm. The approach is based on the Biased Random Key Genetic Algorithm enhanced with four local search algorithms. The self-adaptation of methods and radius perturbation in local improvements works under a proposed probability function, which measures their performance to best guide the search process. The methods have been tested on a test set based on HIV-protease and compared to existing tools. Statistical test performed on the results shows that this approach reaches better results than a non-adaptive algorithm and is competitive with traditional methods.


Self-adaptation Multimeme Memetic Algorithms Molecular docking 



This work was supported by grants from FAPERGS [16/2551-0000520-6], MCT/CNPq [311022/2015-4; 311611/2018-4], CAPES-STIC AMSUD [88887.135130/2017-01] - Brazil, Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung (AvH) [BRA 1190826 HFST CAPES-P] - Germany. This study was financed in part by CAPES - Finance Code 001.


  1. 1.
    Jin, X., Zhihua, C., Wenyin, G.: An adaptive strategy to adjust the components of memetic algorithms. In: 2014 IEEE 26th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp. 55–62, November 2014Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, Y.C.: Beware of docking!. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 36, 78–95 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Combs, S.A., et al.: Small-molecule ligand docking into comparative models with Rosetta. Nature Protoc. 8, 1277–1298 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davis, I.W., Baker, D.: Rosettaligand docking with full ligand and receptor flexibility. J. Mol. Biol. 385, 381–392 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trott, O., Olson, A.J.: 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 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    López-Camacho, E., Godoy, M.J.G., Nebro, A.J., Aldana-Montes, J.F.: jMetalCpp: optimizing molecular docking problems with a C++ metaheuristic framework. Bioinformatics 30, 437–438 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dar, A.M., Mir, S.: Molecular docking: approaches, types, applications and basic challenges. J. Anal. Bioanal. Tech. 08, 8–10 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kitchen, D.B., Decornez, H., Furr, J.R., Bajorath, J.: Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3(11), 935–949 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosin, C.D., Halliday, R.S., Hart, W.E., Belew, R.K.: A comparison of global and local search methods in drug docking. In: In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 221–228. Morgan Kaufmann (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ruiz-Tagle, B., Villalobos-Cid, M., Dorn, M., Inostroza-Ponta, M.: Evaluating the use of local search strategies for a memetic algorithm for the protein-ligand docking problem. In: 2017 36th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC), pp. 1–12, October 2017Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leonhart, P.F., Spieler, E., Braun, R., Dorn, M.: A biased random key genetic algorithm for the proteinligand docking problem. Soft Comput. 23, 1–22 (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krasnogor, N.: Studies on the theory and design space of memetic algorithms. Ph.D. thesis, University of the West of England (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jakob, W.: A general cost-benefit-based adaptation framework for multimeme algorithms. Memetic Comput. 2(3), 201–218 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Domínguez-Isidro, S., Mezura-Montes, E.: A cost-benefit local search coordination in multimeme differential evolution for constrained numerical optimization problems. Swarm Evol. Comput. 39, 249–266 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moscato, P.: On evolution, search, optimization, genetic algorithms and martial arts - towards memetic algorithms (1989)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krasnogor, N., Smith, J.: A tutorial for competent memetic algorithms: model, taxonomy, and design issues. EEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 9(5), 474–488 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gonçalves, J.F., Resende, M.G.C.: Biased random-key genetic algorithms for combinatorial optimization. J. Heuristics 17(5), 487–525 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aarts, E., Lenstra, J.K. (eds.): Local Search in Combinatorial Optimization, 1st edn. Wiley, New York (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C.D., Vecchi, M.P.: Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220(4598), 671–680 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Molina, D., Lozano, M., Sánchez, A.M., Herrera, F.: Memetic algorithms based on local search chains for large scale continuous optimisation problems: MA-SSW-Chains. Soft Comput. 15(11), 2201–2220 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krasnogor, N., Smith, J.: Emergence of profitable search strategies based on a simple inheritance mechanism (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jakob, W.: Towards an adaptive multimeme algorithm for parameter optimisation suiting the engineers’ needs. In: Runarsson, T.P., Beyer, H.-G., Burke, E., Merelo-Guervós, J.J., Whitley, L.D., Yao, X. (eds.) PPSN 2006. LNCS, vol. 4193, pp. 132–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morris, G.M., et al.: AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J. Comput. Chem. 30(16), 2785–2791 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    O’Boyle, N.M., Banck, M., James, C.A., Morley, C., Vandermeersch, T., Hutchison, G.R.: Open babel: an open chemical toolbox. J. Cheminform. 3(1), 1–14 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dunn, O.J.: Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 6(3), 241–252 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    de Magalhães, C.S., Almeida, D.M., Barbosa, H.J.C., Dardenne, L.E.: A dynamic niching genetic algorithm strategy for docking highly flexible ligands. Inf. Sci. 289, 206–224 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of InformaticsFederal University of Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations