Active Site-Directed Pose Prediction Programs for Efficient Filtering of Molecules

  • Muthukumarasamy Karthikeyan
  • Renu Vyas


It is well known that the three-dimensional structure of a protein is a prerequisite in the field of structure-based drug discovery. Proteins are usually crystallized along with substrates (small molecules) and the site of binding is used for further computational study and virtual screening. Homology is a method that helps in modelling when a protein structure lacks co-crystallized ligands and requires knowledge of the binding site or the sequences which are yet to be crystallized, that require some structural understanding to correlate with biological functions. Homology modelling and active site prediction steps are discussed in detail using standard state-of-the-art software. Knowing the exact sites on a particular protein structure where other molecules can bind and interact is of paramount importance for any drug design effort. Having learnt the basic elements of docking, in this chapter we probe further into the binding sites and the specific properties that impart them the capability of getting bound by ligands. Active site-based features like topology, shape volume and amino acid composition all contribute to its preference for binding to a particular ligand molecule. Deducing this knowledge is the crux of an efficient active site-based screening of molecules. Active site information also helps in building a receptor-based pharmacophore query which can be applied as a constraint while screening molecular libraries. The later section therefore highlights some efforts towards active site-based virtual screening of molecules using an internally developed program which computes phi–psi-based fingerprints of proteins and binary fingerprints of ligands as a pre-filtering step for docking.


Active site Homology modelling Phi–psi fingerprints Drug design 


  1. 1.
    Dai T, Liu Q, Gao J, Cao Z, Zhu R (2011) A new protein-ligand binding sites prediction method based on the integration of protein sequence conservation information. BMC Bioinformatics, 12(Suppl 14):9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jain T, Jayaram B (2005) An all atom energy based computational protocol for predicting binding affinities of protein–ligand complexes. FEBS Lett 579:6659–6666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wass MN, Sternberg MJE (2009) Prediction of ligand binding sites using homologous structures and conservation at CASP8. Proteins 77(Suppl 9):147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Henschel A, Winter C, Kim WK, Schroeder M (2007) Using structural motif descriptors for sequence-based binding site prediction. BMC Bioinforma 8(Suppl 4):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schmidt MR, Stansfeld PJ, Tucker SJ, Sansom MS (2013) Simulation-based prediction of phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate binding to an ion channel. Biochemistry 52(2):279–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang X, Mi G, Wang C, Zhang Y, Li J, Guo Y, Pu X, Li M (2012) Prediction of flavin mono-nucleotide binding sites using modified PSSM profile and ensemble support vector machine. Comput Biol Med 42(11):1053–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hendlich M, Rippmann F, Barnickel G (1997) LIGSITE: automatic and efficient detection of potential small molecule-binding sites in proteins. J Mol Graph Model 15(6):359–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Brylinski M, Skolnick J (2008) A threading-based method (FINDSITE) for ligand-binding site prediction and functional annotation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Bitetti-Putzer R, Joseph-McCarthy D, Hogle JM, Karplus M (2001) Functional group placement in protein binding sites: a comparison of GRID and MCSS. Comput Aided Mol Des 15(10):935–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laurie ATR, Jackson RM (2006) Methods for the prediction of protein-ligand binding sites for structure-based drug design and virtual ligand screening. Curr Protein Pept Sci 7(5):395–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang Z, Li Y, Lin B, Schroeder M, Huang B (2011) Identification of cavities on protein surface using multiple computational approaches for drug binding site prediction. Bioinformatics 27(15):2083–2088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Laurie ATR, Jackso RM (2005) Q-SiteFinder: an energy-based method for the prediction of protein–ligand binding sites. Structural bioinformatics 21(9):1908–1916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Krieger E, Nabuurs SB, Vriend G (2003) Homology modeling In: Bourne PE, Weissig H (eds) Structural Bioinformatics. Wiley, Liss, pp 507–521Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marti-Renom MA, Stuart AC, Fiser A, Sanchez R, Melo F, Sali A (2000) Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 29:291–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parulekar RS, Barage SH, Jalkute CB, Dhanavade MJ, Fandilolu PM, Sonawane KD (2013) Homology modeling, molecular docking and DNA binding studies of nucleotide excision repair uvrc protein from M. tuberculosis. Protein 32(6):467–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cashman DJ, Ortega DR, Zhulin IB, Baudry J (2013) Homology modeling of the CheW coupling protein of the chemotaxis signaling complex. PLoS One 8(8):e70705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pang C, Cao T, Li J, Jia M, Zhang S, Ren S, An H, Zhan Y (2013) Combining fragment homology modeling with molecular dynamics aims at prediction of Ca2+ binding sites in CaBPs. J Comput Aided Mol Des (in press)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang P, Zhu BT (2013) Usefulness of molecular modeling approach in characterizing the ligand-binding sites of proteins: experience with human PDI, PDIp and COX. Curr Med Chem (in press)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holtje H-D, Sippl W, Rognan D, G Folkers (2008) Molecular modeling. Wiley, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tramontano A (1998) Homology modeling with low sequence identity. Methods 14(3):293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brylinski M (2013) eVolver: an optimization engine for evolving protein sequences to stabilize the respective structures. BMC Res Notes 6:303. doi:10.1186/1756-0500-6-303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhang Y (2013) Interplay of I-TASSER and QUARK for template-based and ab initio protein structure prediction in CASP10. Proteins (in press)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kihara D, Chen H, Yifeng D Yang YD (2009) Quality assessment of protein structure models. Curr Protein Pept Sci 10:216–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    Eswar N, Marti-Renom MA, Webb B, Madhusudhan MS, Eramian D, Shen Pieper MU, Sali A (2006) Comparative protein structure modeling with MODELLER. In: Coligan JE, Dunn BM, Speicher DW, Wingfield PT (eds) Current protocols in bioinformatics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
    Wermuth CG, Ganellin CR, Lindberg P, Mitscher LA (1998) Glossary of terms used in medicinal chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 1998) Pure Appl Chem 70 (5):1129–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chen J, Lai L (2006) Pocket v.2: further developments on receptor-based pharmacophore modeling. J Chem Inf Model 46(6):2684–2691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Deng J, Lee KW, Sanchez T, Cui M, Neamati N, Briggs JM (2005) Dynamic receptor-based pharmacophore model development and its application in designing novel HIV-1 integrase inhibitors. J Med Chem 48(5):1496–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ebalunode JO, Dong X, Ouyang Z, Liang J, Eckenhoff RG, Zheng W (2009) Structure-based shape pharmacophore modeling for the discovery of novel anaesthetic compounds. Bioorganic Med Chem 49(10):2333–2343Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dror O, Schneidman-Duhovny D, Inbar DY, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJ (2002) A novel approach for efficient pharmacophore-based virtual screening: method and applications. J Mol Biol 324:105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bartlett GJ, Porter CT, Borkakoti N, Thornton JM (2002) Analysis of catalytic residues in enzyme active sites. J Mol Biol 324(1):105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cuneo MJ, Beese LS, Hellinga HW (2008) Ligand-induced conformational changes in a thermophilic ribose-binding protein. BMC Struct Biol 8:50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gliubich F, Gazerro M, Zanotti G, Delbono S, Bombieri G, Berni R (1996) Active site structural features for chemically modified forms of rhodanese. J Biol Chem 271(35):21054–21061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Li S, Hall MB (2001) Modeling the active sites of metalloenzymes. 4. predictions of the unready states of [NiFe] desulfovibrio gigas hydrogenase from density functional theory. Inorg Chem 40(1):18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kumar A, Chaturvedi V, Bhatnagar S, Sinha S, Siddiqi MI (2009) Knowledge based identification of potent anti-tubercular compounds using structure based virtual screening and structure interaction fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model 49(1):35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Desaphy J, Azdimousa K, Kellenberger E, Rognan D (2012) Comparison and druggability prediction of protein-ligand binding sites from pharmacophore-annotated cavity shapes. J Chem Inf Model 52(8):2287–2299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zhang N, Li B-Q, Gao S, Ruan J-S, Cai Y-D (2012) Computational prediction and analysis of protein [gamma]-carboxylation sites based on a random forest method. Mol Bio Syst 8:2946–2955Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Somarowthu S et al (2011) High-performance prediction of functional residues in proteins with machine learning and computed input features. Biopolymers 95:390–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ewing TJA, Kuntz ID (1997) Critical evaluation of search algorithms for automated molecular docking and database screening. J Comp Chem 18:1175–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Marx D, Hutter J (2000) Ab initio molecular dynamics: theory and Implementation In: Grotendorst J (ed.) Modern methods and algorithms of quantum chemistry. John von Neumann Institute for Computing, Jülich, pp 301–449Google Scholar
  56. 56.
  57. 57.
  58. 58.
  59. 59.
  60. 60.
    Meslamani J, Rognan D, Kellenberger E (2011) sc-PDB: a database for identifying variations and multiplicity of ‘druggable’ binding sites in proteins. Bioinformatics 27(9):1324–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Unpublished resultsGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wenying Y, Hui X, Jiayuh L, Chenglong L (2013) Discovery of Novel STAT3 small molecule inhibitors via in silico site-directed fragment-based drug design. J Med Chem 56(11):4402–4412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Putta S, Lemmen C, Beroza P, Greene J (2002) A novel shape-feature based approach to virtual library screening. J Chem Information Comp Sci 42(5):1230–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Digital Information Resource CentreNational Chemical LaboratoryPuneIndia
  2. 2.Scientist (DST) Division of Chemical Engineering and Process DevelopmentNational Chemical LaboratoryPuneIndia

Personalised recommendations