Abstract
Structure-based in silico studies aiming to predict affinity of a set of ligands to their cognate receptor have been enjoying keen interest and attention of researchers in drug design around the globe since many decades, and made significant progress to increase its predictive power, even it has emerged as a complementary field to in vivo and in vitro studies in recent years. Structure-based drug discovery (SBDD) process whose success heavily relies on a careful selection of structure of receptor and ligands and its accuracy, completeness, and rigor of chosen model, imitation of the physiological condition in such in silico models, e.g., pH and solvation. Appropriateness of selected mechanism of binding concept and the realization in mathematical terms used in scoring methods have a strong influence on the accuracy too. However, constant identification of new targets using systems approach like genomics, proteomics, metabolomics , and network biology has led a paradigm shift from single or a couple of targets toward the appreciation of emerging role of a network of targets. The application of such strategies in study of complex diseases is gaining attention. Identification of binding sites of receptor and their characterization is important to be able to portray its interacting features. It involves the search of ligands which are able to possess the features, present them complementary to the binding site, so by docking the set of ligands to the binding pocket of the receptor, activity can be evaluated. In silico receptor–ligand binding affinity prediction from docking has witnessed rigid-receptor rigid-ligand to flexible-ligand rigid-receptor treatment, and nowadays docking studies, through sampling side chain rotations of the binding site residues, also account for the flexibility of binding pocket of the receptor in indirect way. Literature survey has shown progress in ranking ligands in order of affinity using reliable scoring functions to find potent scaffolds which can be further optimized to gain more affinity. Many methods include effect of solvation in binding processes, like considering conserved water positions in active sites (water maps), explicit water simulation in presence of ligand with receptor, free energy perturbation , and thermodynamic integration . Availability of many conformers of receptors and ligands in solution suggests the importance of entropy in estimation of binding affinity, but entropy component of binding free energy directly is not included in such studies. In spite of unprecedented advancement of computational modeling, faster simulation techniques, accurate solvation models and current best practices, the dependence of binding affinity on pH, estimation of entropy along with enthalpy in binding affinity, inclusion of conformational entropy of ligand and receptor, and modulation of flexibilities during complex formation are important challenges lying ahead. Therefore, an account of prowess and challenges in structure-based prediction of binding affinity addressed in present review will provide directions for its appropriate application, understanding its limitations and getting important feedbacks for its betterment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Seifert MHJ, Wolf K, Vitt D (2003) Virtual high-throughput in silico screening. Biosilico 1:143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1478-5382(03)02359-x
Engin H, Gursoy A, Nussinov R, Keskin O (2014) Network-based strategies can help mono- and poly-pharmacology drug discovery: a systems biology view. Curr Pharm Des 20:1201–1207. https://doi.org/10.2174/13816128113199990066
Jones PG (1984) Crystal structure determination: a critical view. Chem Soc Rev 13:157–172. https://doi.org/10.1039/cs9841300157
Billeter M, Wagner G, Wüthrich K (2008) Solution NMR structure determination of proteins revisited. J Biomol NMR 42:155–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10858-008-9277-8
Halperin I, Ma B, Wolfson H, Nussinov R (2002) Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 47:409–443. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.10115
Marrone TJ, Briggs JM, McCammon JA (1997) Structure-based drug design: computational advances. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 37:71–90. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.37.1.71
Perola E, Walters WP, Charifson PS (2004) A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 56:235–249. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.20088
Kitchen DB, Decornez H, Furr JR, Bajorath J (2004) Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3:935–949. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1549
Yuriev E, Ramsland PA (2013) Latest developments in molecular docking: 2010–2011 in review. J Mol Recognit 26:215–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmr.2266
Yuriev E, Agostino M, Ramsland PA (2011) Challenges and advances in computational docking: 2009 in review. J Mol Recognit 24:149–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmr.1077
Yuriev E, Holien J, Ramsland PA (2015) Improvements, trends, and new ideas in molecular docking: 2012–2013 in review. J Mol Recognit 28:581–604. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmr.2471
Taylor RD, Jewsbury PJ, Essex JW (2002) A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J Comput Aided Mol Des 16:151–166. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020155510718
Huang SY, Zou X (2010) Advances and challenges in protein-ligand docking. Int J Mol Sci 11:3016–3034. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms11083016
Chen Y-C (2015) Beware of docking! Trends Pharmacol Sci 36:78–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2014.12.001
Acharya KR, Lloyd MD (2005) The advantages and limitations of protein crystal structures. Trends Pharmacol Sci 26:10–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2004.10.011
Petukh M, Stefl S, Alexov E (2013) The role of protonation states in ligand-receptor recognition and binding. Curr Pharm Des 19:4182–4190. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612811319230004
Onufriev AV, Alexov E (2013) Protonation and pK changes in protein–ligand binding. Q Rev Biophys 46:181–209. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033583513000024
Srivastava J, Barreiro G, Groscurth S et al (2008) Structural model and functional significance of pH-dependent talin-actin binding for focal adhesion remodeling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:14436–14441. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805163105
Ferrara P, Gohlke H, Price DJ et al (2004) Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. J Med Chem 47:3032–3047. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm030489h
Warren GL, Andrews CW, Capelli AM et al (2006) A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J Med Chem 49:5912–5931. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm050362n
Rask-Andersen M, Almén MS, Schiöth HB (2011) Trends in the exploitation of novel drug targets. Nat Rev Drug Discov 10:579–590. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3478
Finan C, Gaulton A, Kruger FA et al (2017) The druggable genome and support for target identification and validation in drug development. Sci Transl Med 9:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aag1166
Civelek M, Lusis AJ (2014) Systems genetics approaches to understand complex traits. Nat Rev Genet 15:34–48. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3575
Csermely P, Korcsmáros T, Kiss HJM et al (2013) Structure and dynamics of molecular networks: a novel paradigm of drug discovery: a comprehensive review. Pharmacol Ther 138:333–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2013.01.016
Zhu P, Aliabadi HM, Uludağ H, Han J (2016) Identification of potential drug targets in cancer signaling pathways using stochastic logical models. Sci Rep 6:23078. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23078
Torkamani A, Topol EJ, Schork NJ (2008) Pathway analysis of seven common diseases assessed by genome-wide association. Genomics 92:265–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2008.07.011
Druker BJ, Tamura S, Buchdunger E et al (1996) Effects of a selective inhibitor of the Abl tyrosine kinase on the growth of Bcr-Abl positive cells. Nat Med 2:561–566. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0596-561
Fabian MA, Biggs WH, Treiber DK et al (2005) A small molecule-kinase interaction map for clinical kinase inhibitors. Nat Biotechnol 23:329–336. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1068
Montgomery JA, Niwas S, Rose JD et al (1993) Structure-based design of inhibitors of purine nucleoside phosphorylase. 1. 9-(arylmethyl) derivatives of 9-deazaguanine. J Med Chem 36:55–69. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm00053a008
Ealick SE, Babu YS, Bugg CE et al (1993) Application of X-ray crystallographic methods in the design of purine nucleoside phosphorylase inhibitors. Ann N Y Acad Sci 685:237–247
Ealick SE, Babu YS, Bugg CE et al (1991) Application of crystallographic and modeling methods in the design of purine nucleoside phosphorylase inhibitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 88:11540–11544. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.89.20.9974c
Erion MD, Niwas S, Rose JD et al (1993) Structure-based design of inhibitors of purine nucleoside phosphorylase. 3. 9-arylmethyl derivatives of 9-deazaguanine substituted on the arylmethyl group. J Med Chem 36:3771–3783. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm00076a004
Freire E (2008) Do enthalpy and entropy distinguish first in class from best in class? Drug Discov Today 13:869–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2008.07.005
Ho M-C, Shi W, Rinaldo-Matthis A et al (2010) Four generations of transition-state analogues for human purine nucleoside phosphorylase. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:4805–4812. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913439107
Edwards AA, Mason JM, Clinch K et al (2009) Altered enthalpy-entropy compensation in picomolar transition state analogues of human purine nucleoside phosphorylase. Biochemistry 48:5226–5238. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi9005896
Ohtaka H, Freire E (2005) Adaptive inhibitors of the HIV-1 protease. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 88:193–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2004.07.005
Muzammil S, Armstrong AA, Kang LW et al (2007) Unique thermodynamic response of tipranavir to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease drug resistance mutations. J Virol 81:5144–5154. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.02706-06
Carbonell T, Freire E (2005) Binding thermodynamics of statins to HMG-CoA reductase. Biochemistry 44:11741–11748. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi050905v
Du X, Li Y, Xia Y-L et al (2016) Insights into protein-ligand interactions: mechanisms, models, and methods. Int J Mol Sci 17:144. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17020144
Amaral M., Kokh DB, Bomke J, Wegener A, Buchstaller HP, Eggenweiler HM, Matias P, Sirrenberg C, Wade RC, Frech M (2017) Protein conformational flexibility modulates kinetics and thermodynamics of drug binding. Nat Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02258-w
De Sanctis V, Kattamis C, Canatan D et al (2017) β-thalassemia distribution in the old world: an ancient disease seen from a historical standpoint. Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis 9:1–14. https://doi.org/10.4084/mjhid.2017.018
Goss C, Giardina P, Degtyaryova D et al (2014) Red blood cell transfusions for thalassemia: results of a survey assessing current practice and proposal of evidence-based guidelines. Transfusion 54:1773–1781. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.12571
Michlitsch J, Walters M (2008) Recent advances in bone marrow transplantation in hemoglobinopathies. Curr Mol Med 8:675–689. https://doi.org/10.2174/156652408786241393
Human Hemoglobin Structures (PDB) (2018) http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/results/results.do?tabtoshow=Current&qrid=205B68A9. Accessed 15 Feb 2018
Brown EN, Ramaswamy S (2007) Quality of protein crystal structures. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 63:941–950. https://doi.org/10.1107/s0907444907033847
Wlodawer A, Minor W, Dauter Z, Jaskolski M (2008) Protein crystallography for non-crystallographers, or how to get the best (but not more) from published macromolecular structures. FEBS J 275:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2007.06178.x
Muller P (2009) Practical suggestions for better crystal structures. Crystallogr Rev 15:57–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/08893110802547240
Deller MC, Rupp B (2015) Models of protein-ligand crystal structures: trust, but verify. J Comput Aided Mol Des 29:817–836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-015-9833-8
Carugo O (2018) How large B-factors can be in protein crystal structures. BMC Bioinform 19:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-018-2083-8
Li Z, Lazaridis T (2005) The effect of water displacement on binding thermodynamics: Concanavalin A. J Phys Chem B 109:662–670. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp0477912
Young T, Abel R, Kim B et al (2007) Motifs for molecular recognition exploiting hydrophobic enclosure in protein–ligand binding. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:808–813. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610202104
Snyder PW, Mecinovic J, Moustakas DT et al (2011) Mechanism of the hydrophobic effect in the biomolecular recognition of arylsulfonamides by carbonic anhydrase. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:17889–17894. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114107108
Sánchez R, Sali A (1997) Advances in comparative protein-structure modelling. Curr Opin Struct Biol 7:206–214
Eswar N, John B, Mirkovic N et al (2003) Tools for comparative protein structure modeling and analysis. Nucl Acids Res 31:3375–3380
Laskowski RA, MacArthur MW, Moss DS, Thornton JM (1993) PROCHECK: a program to check the stereochemical quality of protein structures. J Appl Crystallogr 26:283–291. https://doi.org/10.1107/s0021889892009944
Vriend G (1990) WHAT IF: a molecular modeling and drug design program. J Mol Graph 8:52–6, 29
McKinney JD, Zu Bentrup K Höner, Muñoz-Elias EJ et al (2000) Persistence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in macrophages and mice requires the glyoxylate shunt enzyme isocitrate lyase. Nature 406:735–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/35021074
Tanjore Soundarajan Balganesh; Santanu Datta; Indira Ghosh (2004) WO2004087943A1
Nelson K, Wang FS, Boyd EF, Selander RK (1997) Size and sequence polymorphism in the isocitrate dehydrogenase kinase/phosphatase gene (aceK) and flanking regions in Salmonella enterica and Escherichia coli. Genetics 147:1509–1520
Garnak M, Reeves H (1979) Phosphorylation of isocitrate dehydrogenase of Escherichia coli. Science 203(80):1111–1112. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.34215
Vinekar R, Verma C, Ghosh I (2012) Functional relevance of dynamic properties of dimeric NADP-dependent isocitrate dehydrogenases. BMC Bioinform 13:S2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-13-s17-s2
Vinekar R, Ghosh I (2009) Determination of phosphorylation sites for NADP-specific isocitrate dehydrogenase from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Biomol Struct Dyn 26:741–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/07391102.2009.10507286
Av-Gay Y, Everett M (2000) The eukaryotic-like Ser/Thr protein kinases of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Trends Microbiol 8:238–244
Hurley JH, Thorsness PE, Ramalingam V et al (1989) Structure of a bacterial enzyme regulated by phosphorylation, isocitrate dehydrogenase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 86:8635–8639. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.86.22.8635
Ceccarelli C, Grodsky NB, Ariyaratne N et al (2002) Crystal structure of porcine mitochondrial NADP+-dependent isocitrate dehydrogenase complexed with Mn2+ and isocitrate: Insights into the enzyme mechanism. J Biol Chem 277:43454–43462. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m207306200
Quartararo CE, Hazra S, Hadi T, Blanchard JS (2013) Structural, kinetic and chemical mechanism of isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 from Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Biochemistry 52:1765–1775. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi400037w
Hardin C, Pogorelov TV, Luthey-Schulten Z (2002) Ab initio protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol 12:176–181
Bonneau R, Baker D (2001) Ab initio protein structure prediction. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 30:173–189
Moult J, Fidelis K, Kryshtafovych A et al (2017) Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)—round XII. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinform 82:1–6
Singh A, Kaushik R, Mishra A et al (2016) ProTSAV: a protein tertiary structure analysis and validation server. Biochim Biophys Acta Proteins Proteomics 1864:11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbapap.2015.10.004
Novoa EM, de Pouplana LR, Barril X, Orozco M (2010) Ensemble docking from homology models. J Chem Theory Comput 6:2547–2557
Kadam RU, Juraszek J, Brandenburg B et al (2017) Potent peptidic fusion inhibitors of influenza virus. Science 358(80):496–502. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan051
Chang YS, Graves B, Guerlavais V et al (2013) Stapled α-helical peptide drug development: a potent dual inhibitor of MDM2 and MDMX for p53-dependent cancer therapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:E3445–E3454. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1303002110
Shadfan M, Lopez-Pajares V, Yuan Z-M (2012) MDM2 and MDMX: alone and together in regulation of p53. Transl Cancer Res 1:88–89. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2218-676x.2012.04.02
Tiwari G, Verma CS (2017) Toward understanding the molecular recognition of albumin by p53-activating stapled peptide ATSP-7041. J Phys Chem B 121:657–670. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.6b09900
Schindler CEM, De Vries SJ, Zacharias M (2015) Fully blind peptide-protein docking with pepATTRACT. Structure 23:1507–1515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2015.05.021
Leder L, Berger C, Bomhauser S et al (1995) Spectroscopic, calorimetric, and kinetic demonstration of conformational adaptation in peptide-antibody recognition. Biochemistry 34:16509–16518. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi00050a035
Ferrari AM, Wei BQ, Costantino L, Shoichet BK (2004) Soft docking and multiple receptor conformations in virtual screening. J Med Chem 47:5076–5084. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm049756p
Totrov M, Ferna J, Abagyan R (2002) Soft protein–protein docking in internal coordinates. Protein Sci 11:280–291. https://doi.org/10.1110/ps.19202.ical
Li CH, Ma XH, Chen WZ, Wang CX (2003) A soft docking algorithm for predicting the structure of antibody-antigen complexes. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 52:47–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.10382
Alonso H, Bliznyuk AA, Gready JE (2006) Combining docking and molecular dynamic simulations in drug design. Med Res Rev 26:531–568. https://doi.org/10.1002/med.20067
Leach AR (1994) Ligand docking to proteins with discrete side-chain flexibility. J Mol Biol 235:345–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-2836(05)80038-5
Schnecke V, Kuhn LA (2000) Virtual screening with solvation and ligand-induced complementarity. Perspect Drug Discov Des 20:171–190. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008737207775
Källblad P, Dean PM (2003) Efficient conformational sampling of local side-chain flexibility. J Mol Biol 326:1651–1665. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-2836(03)00083-4
Frimurer TM, Peters GH, Iversen LF et al (2003) Ligand-induced conformational changes: Improved predictions of ligand binding conformations and affinities. Biophys J 84:2273–2281. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-3495(03)75033-4
Gaudreault F, Chartier M, Najmanovich R (2012) Side-chain rotamer changes upon ligand binding: common, crucial, correlate with entropy and rearrange hydrogen bonding. Bioinformatics 28:423–430. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts395
Apostolakis J, Plückthun A, Caflisch A (1998) Docking small ligands in flexible binding sites. J Comput Chem 19:21–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-987x(19980115)19:1%3c21::aid-jcc2%3e3.0.co;2-0
Davis IW, Baker D (2009) RosettaLigand docking with full ligand and receptor flexibility. J Mol Biol 385:381–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2008.11.010
Meiler J, Baker D (2006) ROSETTALIGAND: protein-small molecule docking with full side-chain flexibility. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinform 65:538–548. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.21086
Perryman AL, Lin JH, McCammon JA (2006) Optimization and computational evaluation of a series of potential active site inhibitors of the V82F/I84V drug-resistant mutant of HIV-1 protease: an application of the relaxed complex method of structure-based drug design. Chem Biol Drug Des 67:336–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0285.2006.00382.x
Shandilya A, Chacko S, Jayaram B, Ghosh I (2013) A plausible mechanism for the antimalarial activity of artemisinin: a computational approach. Sci Rep 3:2513
Li J, Zhou B (2010) Biological actions of artemisinin: insights from medicinal chemistry studies. Molecules 15:1378–1397
Eckstein-Ludwig U, Webb RJ, Van Goethem IDA et al (2003) Artemisinins target the SERCA of Plasmodium falciparum. Nature 424:957
Pawan K, Shandilya A, Jayaram B, Ghosh I (2016) Integrative method for finding antimalarials using in silico approach. In: Kholmurodov KT (ed) Computer design for new drugs and materials. Nova Science Publishers, New York, NY, pp 13–38
Waelbroeck M (1982) The pH dependence of insulin binding. A quantitative study. J Biol Chem 257:8284–8291
Ellis CR, Shen J (2015) pH-dependent population shift regulates BACE1 activity and inhibition. J Am Chem Soc 137:9543–9546. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.5b05891
Mongan J, Case DA, McCammon JA (2004) Constant pH molecular dynamics in generalized Born implicit solvent. J Comput Chem 25:2038–2048. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20139
Kim MO, Blachly PG, McCammon JA (2015) Conformational dynamics and binding free energies of inhibitors of BACE-1: from the perspective of protonation equilibria. PLoS Comput Biol 11:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004341
Hodge CN, Aldrich PE, Bacheler LT et al (1996) Improved cyclic urea inhibitors of the HIV-1 protease: synthesis, potency, resistance profile, human pharmacokinetics and X-ray crystal structure of DMP 450. Chem Biol 3:301–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1074-5521(96)90110-6
Lam PY, Jadhav PK, Eyermann CJ et al (1994) Rational design of potent, bioavailable, nonpeptide cyclic ureas as HIV protease inhibitors. Science 263(80):380–384. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.8278812
Kumalo HM, Bhakat S, Soliman MES (2015) Theory and applications of covalent docking in drug discovery: merits and pitfalls. Molecules 20:1984–2000. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules20021984
Lecomte M, Laneuville O, Ji C et al (1994) Acetylation of human prostaglandin endoperoxide synthase-2 (cyclooxygenase-2) by aspirin. J Biol Chem 269:13207–13215
Hadváry P, Lengsfeld H, Wolfer H (1988) Inhibition of pancreatic lipase in vitro by the covalent inhibitor tetrahydrolipstatin. Biochem J 256:357–361. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj2560357
Scarpino A, Ferenczy GG, Keserű GM (2018) Comparative evaluation of covalent docking tools. J Chem Inf Model acs.jcim.8b00228. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00228
Zhu K, Borrelli KW, Greenwood JR et al (2014) Docking covalent inhibitors: a parameter free approach to pose prediction and scoring. J Chem Inf Model 54:1932–1940. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci500118s
Bianco G, Forli S, Goodsell DS, Olson AJ (2016) Covalent docking using autodock: two-point attractor and flexible side chain methods. Protein Sci 25:295–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.2733
Corbeil CR, Englebienne P, Moitessier N (2007) Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 1. Development and validation of FITTED 1.0. J Chem Inf Model 47:435–449. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci6002637
MOE: Molecular Operating Environment (2018) http://www.chemcomp.com/MOE-Molecular_Operating_Environment.htm. Accessed 7 Feb 2018
Katritch V, Byrd CM, Tseitin V et al (2007) Discovery of small molecule inhibitors of ubiquitin-like poxvirus proteinase I7L using homology modeling and covalent docking approaches. J Comput Aided Mol Des 21:549–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-007-9138-7
Verdonk ML, Cole JC, Hartshorn MJ et al (2003) Improved protein–ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinform 623:609–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.10465
Domínguez JL, Christopeit T, Villaverde MC et al (2010) Effect of the protonation state of the titratable residues on the inhibitor affinity to BACE-1. Biochemistry 49:7255–7263. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi100637n
Perryman AL, Lin J (2004) HIV-1 protease molecular dynamics of a wild-type and of the V82F / I84V mutant: possible contributions to drug resistance and a potential new target site for drugs. Protein Sci 13:1108–1123. https://doi.org/10.1110/ps.03468904.importance
Trylska J, Tozzini V, Chang CEA, McCammon JA (2007) HIV-1 protease substrate binding and product release pathways explored with coarse-grained molecular dynamics. Biophys J 92:4179–4187. https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.106.100560
Liu Z-P, Wu L-Y, Wang Y et al (2008) Bridging protein local structures and protein functions. Amino Acids 35:627–650
Ratnaparkhi GS, Varadarajan R (2000) Thermodynamic and structural studies of cavity formation in proteins suggest that loss of packing interactions rather than the hydrophobic effect dominates the observed energetics. Biochemistry 39:12365–12374
DesJarlais RL, Sheridan RP, Seibel GL et al (1988) Using shape complementarity as an initial screen in designing ligands for a receptor binding site of known three-dimensional structure. J Med Chem 31:722–729
Anderson AC (2003) The process of structure-based drug design. Chem Biol 10:787–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chembiol.2003.09.002
Lee B, Richards FM (1971) The interpretation of protein structures: estimation of static accessibility. J Mol Biol 55:379–400
Connolly ML (1983) Analytical molecular surface calculation. J Appl Crystallogr 16:548–558
Connolly ML (1983) Solvent-accessible surfaces of proteins and nucleic acids. Science 221:709–713
Liang J, Woodward C, Edelsbrunner H (1998) Anatomy of protein pockets and cavities: measurement of binding site geometry and implications for ligand design. Protein Sci 7:1884–1897
Edelsbrunner H (1995) Smooth surfaces for multi-scale shape representation. In: International conference on foundations of software technology and theoretical computer science, pp 391–412
Mücke EP (1998) A robust implementation for three-dimensional Delaunay triangulations. Int J Comput Geom Appl 8:255–276
Bryant R, Edelsbrunner H, Koehl P, Levitt M (2004) The area derivative of a space-filling diagram. Discrete Comput Geom 32:293–308
Dundas J, Ouyang Z, Tseng J et al (2006) CASTp: computed atlas of surface topography of proteins with structural and topographical mapping of functionally annotated residues. Nucleic Acids Res 34:W116–W118
Benkaidali L, André F, Maouche B et al (2013) Computing cavities, channels, pores and pockets in proteins from non-spherical ligands models. Bioinformatics 30:792–800
Huang B, Schroeder M (2006) LIGSITE csc: predicting ligand binding sites using the Connolly surface and degree of conservation. BMC Struct Biol 6:19
Oliveira SHP, Ferraz FAN, Honorato RV et al (2014) KVFinder: steered identification of protein cavities as a PyMOL plugin. BMC Bioinform 15:197
Brady GP, Stouten PFW (2000) Fast prediction and visualization of protein binding pockets with PASS. J Comput Aided Mol Des 14:383–401
Czirják G (2015) PrinCCes: continuity-based geometric decomposition and systematic visualization of the void repertoire of proteins. J Mol Graph Model 62:118–127
Yu J, Zhou Y, Tanaka I, Yao M (2009) Roll: a new algorithm for the detection of protein pockets and cavities with a rolling probe sphere. Bioinformatics 26:46–52
Sheffler W, Baker D (2009) RosettaHoles: rapid assessment of protein core packing for structure prediction, refinement, design, and validation. Protein Sci 18:229–239
Laskowski RA (1995) SURFNET: a program for visualizing molecular surfaces, cavities, and intermolecular interactions. J Mol Graph 13:323–330
Kleywegt GJ, Jones TA (1994) Detection, delineation, measurement and display of cavities in macromolecular structures. Acta Crystallogr Sect D: Biol Crystallogr 50:178–185
Jacoby E, Fauchère J-L, Raimbaud E et al (1999) A three binding site hypothesis for the interaction of ligands with monoamine g protein-coupled receptors: implications for combinatorial ligand design. Mol Inform 18:561–572
Deganutti G, Moro S (2017) Estimation of kinetic and thermodynamic ligand-binding parameters using computational strategies. Future Med Chem 9:507–523
Chiu SH, Xie L (2016) Toward high-throughput predictive modeling of protein binding/unbinding kinetics. J Chem Inf Model 56:1164–1174
Singh A (2014) Selectivity and specificity profiling of binding sites of SER/THR kinases: case study of homo sapiens and Plasmodium falciparum. Jawaharlal Nehru University
Hanks SK, Hunter T (1995) Protein kinases 6. The eukaryotic protein kinase superfamily: kinase (catalytic) domain structure and classification. FASEB J 9:576–596. https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.9.8.776834
Freire E (2015) The binding thermodynamics of drug candidates. In: thermodynamics and kinetics of drug binding. Wiley Online Library, pp 1–13
Cross S, Baroni M, Carosati E et al (2010) FLAP: GRID molecular interaction fields in virtual screening. Validation using the DUD data set. J Chem Inf Model 50:1442–1450
Kaalia R, Kumar A, Srinivasan A, Ghosh I (2015) An ab initio method for designing multi-target specific pharmacophores using complementary interaction field of aspartic proteases. Mol Inform 34:380–393
Nakashima R, Sakurai K, Yamasaki S et al (2013) Structural basis for the inhibition of bacterial multidrug exporters. Nature 500:102
Koshland DE (1958) Application of a theory of enzyme specificity to protein synthesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci 44:98–104. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.44.2.98
Debler EW, Müller R, Hilvert D, Wilson IA (2008) Conformational isomerism can limit antibody catalysis. J Biol Chem 283:16554–16560. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.m710256200
Doshi U, McGowan LC, Ladani ST, Hamelberg D (2012) Resolving the complex role of enzyme conformational dynamics in catalytic function. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:5699–5704. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117060109
Teague SJ (2003) Implications of protein flexibility for drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2:527–541. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1129
Hawkins PCD (2017) Conformation generation: the state of the art. J Chem Inf Model 57:1747–1756. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00221
Grinter SZ, Zou X (2014) Challenges, applications, and recent advances of protein-ligand docking in structure-based drug design. Molecules 19:10150–10176. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules190710150
Mobley DL, Dill KA (2009) Binding of small-molecule ligands to proteins: “what you see” is not always “what you get.” Structure 17:489–498
London N, Movshovitz-Attias D, Schueler-Furman O (2010) The structural basis of peptide-protein binding strategies. Structure 18:188–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2009.11.012
London N, Raveh B, Schueler-Furman O (2013) Peptide docking and structure-based characterization of peptide binding: from knowledge to know-how. Curr Opin Struct Biol 23:894–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2013.07.006
Bernetti M, Cavalli A, Mollica L (2017) Protein–ligand (un)binding kinetics as a new paradigm for drug discovery at the crossroad between experiments and modelling. Med Chem Commun 8:534–550. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6md00581k
Pan AC, Borhani DW, Dror RO, Shaw DE (2013) Molecular determinants of drug-receptor binding kinetics. Drug Discov Today 18:667–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2013.02.007
Case DA (1988) Dynamical simulation of rate constants in protein-ligand interactions. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 52:39–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0079-6107(88)90007-7
Liu J, Wang R (2015) Classification of current scoring functions. J Chem Inf Model 55:475–482. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci500731a
Cornell WD, Cieplak P, Bayly CI et al (1995) A second generation force field for the simulation of proteins, nucleic acids, and organic molecules. J Am Chem Soc 117:5179–5197
MacKerell AD Jr, Bashford D, Bellott M et al (1998) All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. J Phys Chem B 102:3586–3616
Allen WJ, Balius TE, Mukherjee S et al (2015) DOCK 6: impact of new features and current docking performance. J Comput Chem 36:1132–1156. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.23905
Simonson T, Archontis G, Karplus M (2002) Free energy simulations come of age: protein-ligand recognition. Acc Chem Res 35:430–437
Kramer B, Rarey M, Lengauer T (1999) Evaluation of the FLEXX incremental construction algorithm for protein–ligand docking. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinform 37:228–241
Böhm H-J (1994) The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure. J Comput Aided Mol Des 8:243–256
Eldridge MD, Murray CW, Auton TR et al (1997) Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes. J Comput Aided Mol Des 11:425–445
Böhm H-J (1992) LUDI: rule-based automatic design of new substituents for enzyme inhibitor leads. J Comput Aided Mol Des 6:593–606
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
Wang R, Lai L, Wang S (2002) Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction. J Comput Aided Mol Des 16:11–26
Sippl MJ (1995) Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 5:229–235
Lyne PD (2002) Structure-based virtual screening: an overview. Drug Discov Today 7:1047–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1359-6446(02)02483-2
Muegge I (2000) A knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: probing the reference state. Perspect Drug Discov Des 20:99–114
Gohlke H, Hendlich M, Klebe G (2000) Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol 295:337–356
Head RD, Smythe ML, Oprea TI et al (1996) VALIDATE: A new method for the receptor-based prediction of binding affinities of novel ligands. J Am Chem Soc 118:3959–3969
Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T, Klebe G (1996) A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol 261:470–489
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
Spyrakis F, Amadasi A, Fornabaio M et al (2007) The consequences of scoring docked ligand conformations using free energy correlations. Eur J Med Chem 42:921–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2006.12.037
Oprea TI, Marshall GR (1998) Receptor-based prediction of binding affinities. Perspect Drug Discov Des 9:35–61
Huang N, Shoichet BK, Irwin JJ (2006) Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J Med Chem 49:6789–6801. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm0608356
Empereur-Mot C, Guillemain H, Latouche A et al (2015) Predictiveness curves in virtual screening. J Cheminform 7:52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-015-0100-8
Bauer MR, Ibrahim TM, Vogel SM, Boeckler FM (2013) Evaluation and optimization of virtual screening workflows with DEKOIS 2.0—a public library of challenging docking benchmark sets. J Chem Inf Model 53:1447–1462
Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z et al (2000) The protein data bank. Nucl Acids Res 28:235–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.1.235
Gore S, Sanz García E, Hendrickx PMS et al (2017) Validation of structures in the protein data bank. Structure 25:1916–1927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2017.10.009
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
Van Zundert GCP, Rodrigues JPGLM, Trellet M, Schmitz C (2016) The HADDOCK2. 2 web server: user-friendly integrative modeling of biomolecular complexes. J Mol Biol 428:720–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2015.09.014
Diller DJ, Merz KM (2001) High throughput docking for library design and library prioritization. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 43:113–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0134(20010501)43:2%3c113:aid-prot1023%3e3.0.co;2-t
Venkatachalam CM, Jiang X, Oldfield T, Waldman M (2003) LigandFit: a novel method for the shape-directed rapid docking of ligands to protein active sites. J Mol Graph Model 21:289–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1093-3263(02)00164-x
Holton S, Merckx A, Burgess D et al (2003) Structures of P. falciparum PfPK5 test the CDK regulation paradigm and suggest mechanisms of small molecule inhibition. Structure 11:1329–1337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2003.09.020
Engels MFM, Gibbs AC, Jaeger EP et al (2006) A cluster-based strategy for assessing the overlap between large chemical libraries and its application to a recent acquisition. J Chem Inf Model 46:2651–2660. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci600219n
Krier M, Bret G, Rognan D (2006) Assessing the scaffold diversity of screening libraries. J Chem Inf Model 46:512–524. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci050352v
McGregor MJ, Muskal SM (1999) Pharmacophore fingerprinting. 1. Application to QSAR and focused library design. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 39:569–574. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci980159j
Reymond J-L, van Deursen R, Blum LC, Ruddigkeit L (2010) Chemical space as a source for new drugs. Medchemcomm 1:30. https://doi.org/10.1039/c0md00020e
Williams AJ (2008) A perspective of publicly accessible/open-access chemistry databases. Drug Discov Today 13:495–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2008.03.017
Lavecchia A, Di Giovanni C (2013) Virtual screening strategies in drug discovery: a critical review. Curr Med Chem 20:2839–2860. https://doi.org/10.2174/09298673113209990001
Hann MM, Oprea TI (2004) Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Curr Opin Chem Biol 8:255–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2004.04.003
Villoutreix Bruno O, Renault Nicolas, Lagorce David et al (2007) Free resources to assist structure-based virtual ligand screening experiments. Curr Protein Pept Sci 8:381–411. https://doi.org/10.2174/138920307781369391
Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ (2012) Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 64:4–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.019
Congreve M, Carr R, Murray C, Jhoti H (2003) A “rule of three” for fragment-based lead discovery? Drug Discov Today 8:876–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1359-6446(03)02831-9
Hughes JD, Blagg J, Price DA et al (2008) Physiochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 18:4872–4875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmcl.2008.07.071
Lagarde N, Zagury J-F, Montes M (2015) Benchmarking data sets for the evaluation of virtual ligand screening methods: review and perspectives. J Chem Inf Model 55:1297–1307. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00090
Réau M, Langenfeld F, Zagury J-F et al (2018) Decoys selection in benchmarking datasets: overview and perspectives. Front Pharmacol 9 https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.00011
Clark RD, Strizhev A, Leonard JM et al (2002) Consensus scoring for ligand/protein interactions. J Mol Graph Model 20:281–295
Cox JAG, Mugumbate G, Del Peral LVG et al (2016) Novel inhibitors of Mycobacterium tuberculosis GuaB2 identified by a target based high-throughput phenotypic screen. Sci Rep 6:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep38986
McInnes C (2007) Virtual screening strategies in drug discovery. Curr Opin Chem Biol 11:494–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2007.08.033
Kumar A, Zhang KYJ (2018) A cross docking pipeline for improving pose prediction and virtual screening performance. J Comput Aided Mol Des 32:163–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-017-0048-z
Thilagavathi R, Mancera RL (2010) Ligand- protein cross-docking with water molecules. J Chem Inf Model 50:415–421
Kilambi KP, Gray JJ (2017) Structure-based cross-docking analysis of antibody–antigen interactions. Sci Rep 7:8145
Kroemer RT, Vulpetti A, McDonald JJ et al (2004) Assessment of docking poses: interactions-based accuracy classification (IBAC) versus crystal structure deviations. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44:871–881
Smith RD, Dunbar JB, Ung PM et al (2011) CSAR benchmark exercise of 2010: combined evaluation across all submitted scoring functions. J Chem Inf Model 51:2115–2131. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci200269q
Oda A, Tsuchida K, Takakura T et al (2006) Comparison of consensus scoring strategies for evaluating computational models of protein-ligand complexes. J Chem Inf Model 46:380–391. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci050283k
Dixon SL, Smondyrev AM, Knoll EH et al (2006) PHASE: a new engine for pharmacophore perception, 3D QSAR model development, and 3D database screening: 1. Methodology and preliminary results. J Comput Aided Mol Des 20:647–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-006-9087-6
Verma J, Khedkar VM, Coutinho EC (2010) 3D-QSAR in drug design—a review. Curr Top Med Chem 10:95–115. https://doi.org/10.2174/156802610790232260
Halgren TA, Murphy RB, Friesner RA et al (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J Med Chem 47:1750–1759. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm030644s
Hawkins PCD, Skillman AG, Nicholls A (2007) Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools. J Med Chem 50:74–82. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm0603365
Hawkins PCD, Skillman AG, Warren GL et al (2010) Conformer generation with OMEGA: algorithm and validation using high quality structures from the protein databank and Cambridge structural database. J Chem Inf Model 50:572–584. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci100031x
Takagi T, Amano M, Tomimoto M (2009) Novel method for the evaluation of 3D conformation generators. J Chem Inf Model 49:1377–1388. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci800393w
Ebejer J-P, Morris GM, Deane CM (2012) Freely available conformer generation methods: how good are they? J Chem Inf Model 52:1146–1158. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci2004658
Loferer MJ, Kolossváry I, Aszódi A (2007) Analyzing the performance of conformational search programs on compound databases. J Mol Graph Model 25:700–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmgm.2006.05.008
Vainio MJ, Johnson MS (2007) Generating conformer ensembles using a multiobjective genetic algorithm. J Chem Inf Model 47:2462–2474. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci6005646
Li J, Ehlers T, Sutter J et al (2007) CAESAR: a new conformer generation algorithm based on recursive buildup and local rotational symmetry consideration. J Chem Inf Model 47:1923–1932. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci700136x
Watts KS, Dalal P, Murphy RB et al (2010) ConfGen: a conformational search method for efficient generation of bioactive conformers. J Chem Inf Model 50:534–546. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci100015j
O’Boyle N, Vandermeersch T, Hutchison G (2011) Confab—generation of diverse low energy conformers. J Cheminform 3:P32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-2946-3-s1-p32
Gasteiger J, Rudolph C, Sadowski J (1990) Automatic generation of 3D-atomic coordinates for organic molecules. Tetrahedron Comput Methodol 3:537–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5529(90)90156-3
Riniker S, Landrum GA (2015) Better informed distance geometry: using what we know to improve conformation generation. J Chem Inf Model 55:2562–2574. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00654
Miteva MA, Guyon F, Tuffery P (2010) Frog2: efficient 3D conformation ensemble generator for small compounds. Nucl Acids Res 38:W622–W627. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq325
Sauton N, Lagorce D, Villoutreix BO, Miteva MA (2008) MS-DOCK: accurate multiple conformation generator and rigid docking protocol for multi-step virtual ligand screening. BMC Bioinform 9:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-184
Greg L (2018) RDKit: open-source cheminformatics. http://www.rdkit.org/. Accessed 7 Feb 2018
Sabbadin D, Moro S (2014) Supervised molecular dynamics (SuMD) as a helpful tool to depict GPCR-ligand recognition pathway in a nanosecond time scale. J Chem Inf Model 54:372–376. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci400766b
Mobley DL, Gilson MK (2017) Predicting binding free energies: frontiers and benchmarks. Annu Rev Biophys 46:531–558. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-070816-033654
Chodera JD, Mobley DL, Shirts MR et al (2011) Alchemical free energy methods for drug discovery: progress and challenges. Curr Opin Struct Biol 21:150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2011.01.011
Shirts MR, Mobley DL, Brown SP (2010) Free-energy calculations in structure-based drug design. In: Merz KM, Ringe D, Reynolds CH (eds) Drug design: structure-and ligand-based approaches. Cambridge University Press, New York, Cambridge, pp 61–86
Hansen N, Van Gunsteren WF (2014) Practical aspects of free-energy calculations: a review. J Chem Theory Comput 10:2632–2647. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct500161f
Christ CD, Mark AE, van Gunsteren WF (2009) Basic ingredients of free energy calculations: a review. J Comput Chem 31:1569-1582. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21450
Genheden S, Ryde U (2015) The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate ligand-binding affinities. Expert Opin Drug Discov 10:449–461. https://doi.org/10.1517/17460441.2015.1032936
Homeyer N, Gohlke H (2012) Free energy calculations by the molecular mechanics Poisson-Boltzmann surface area method. Mol Inform 31:114–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/minf.201100135
Case DA, Babin V, Berryman JT, Betz RM, Cai Q, Cerutti DS, Cheatham TE III, Darden TA, Duke RE, Gohlke H, Goetz AW, Gusarov S, Homeyer N, Janowski P, Kaus J, Kolossváry I, Kovalenko A, Lee TS, LeGrand S, Luchko T, Luo R, Madej B, Merz KM, Paesani F, Roe DR, Roitberg A, Sagui C, Salomon-Ferrer R, Seabra G, Simmerling CL, Smith W, Swails J, Walker RC, Wang J, Wolf RM, Wolf X, Kollman PA (2014) Amber14 Reference manual
Sprenger KG, Jaeger VW, Pfaendtner J (2015) The general AMBER force field (GAFF) can accurately predict thermodynamic and transport properties of many ionic liquids. J Phys Chem B 119:5882–5895. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.5b00689
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
Nguyen CN, Kurtzman Young T, Gilson MK (2012) Grid inhomogeneous solvation theory: hydration structure and thermodynamics of the miniature receptor cucurbit[7]uril. J Chem Phys 137:044101. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4733951
Kräutler V, Van Gunsteren WF, Hünenberger PH (2001) A fast SHAKE algorithm to solve distance constraint equations for small molecules in molecular dynamics simulations. J Comput Chem 22:501–508. https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-987x(20010415)22:5%3c501:aid-jcc1021%3e3.0.co;2-v
Salomon-Ferrer R, Case DA, Walker RC (2013) An overview of the amber biomolecular simulation package. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Mol Sci 3:198–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1121
Miller BR, McGee TD, Swails JM et al (2012) MMPBSA.py: an efficient program for end-state free energy calculations. J Chem Theory Comput 8:3314–3321. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct300418h
Marlow MS, Dogan J, Frederick KK et al (2010) The role of conformational entropy in molecular recognition by calmodulin. Nat Chem Biol 6:352–358. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.347
Kasinath V, Sharp KA, Wand AJ (2013) Microscopic insights into the NMR relaxation-based protein conformational entropy meter. J Am Chem Soc 135:15092–15100. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja405200u
Diehl C, Engström O, Delaine T et al (2010) Protein flexibility and conformational entropy in ligand design targeting the carbohydrate recognition domain of galectin-3. J Am Chem Soc 132:14577–14589. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja105852y
Fenley AT, Muddana HS, Gilson MK (2012) Entropy-enthalpy transduction caused by conformational shifts can obscure the forces driving protein-ligand binding. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:20006–20011. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213180109
Chodera JD, Mobley DL (2013) Entropy-enthalpy compensation: role and ramifications in biomolecular ligand recognition and design. Annu Rev Biophys 42:121–142. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-083012-130318
Olsson TSG, Ladbury JE, Pitt WR, Williams MA (2011) Extent of enthalpy-entropy compensation in protein-ligand interactions. Protein Sci 20:1607–1618. https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.692
López-Blanco JR, Miyashita O, Tama F, Chacón P (2014) Normal mode analysis techniques in structural biology. In: John Wiley & Sons Ltd (ed) eLS. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, p 9
Numata J, Wan M, Knapp E-W (2007) Conformational entropy of biomolecules: beyond the quasi-harmonic approximation. Genome Inform 18:192–205
Killian BJ, Yundenfreund Kravitz J, Gilson MK (2007) Extraction of configurational entropy from molecular simulations via an expansion approximation. J Chem Phys 127:024107. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2746329
Numata J, Knapp E-W (2012) Balanced and bias-corrected computation of conformational entropy differences for molecular trajectories. J Chem Theory Comput 8:1235–1245. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct200910z
Suárez E, Díaz N, Méndez J, Suárez D (2013) CENCALC: a computational tool for conformational entropy calculations from molecular simulations. J Comput Chem 34:2041–2054. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.23350
Killian BJ, Kravitz JY, Somani S et al (2009) Configurational entropy in protein-peptide binding: computational study of Tsg101 ubiquitin E2 variant domain with an HIV-derived PTAP nonapeptide. J Mol Biol 389:315–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2009.04.003
Fenley AT, Killian BJ, Hnizdo V et al (2014) Correlation as a determinant of configurational entropy in supramolecular and protein systems. J Phys Chem B 118:6447–6455. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp411588b
Fogolari F, Brigo a, Molinari H (2002) The Poisson-Boltzmann equation for biomolecular electrostatics: a tool for structural biology. J Mol Recognit 15:377–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmr.577
King BM, Silver NW, Tidor B (2012) Efficient calculation of molecular configurational entropies using an information theoretic approximation. J Phys Chem B 116:2891–2904. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp2068123
Tembre BL, Mc Cammon JA (1984) Ligand-receptor interactions. Comput Chem 8:281–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/0097-8485(84)85020-2
Lybrand TP, Ghosh I, McCammon JA (1985) Hydration of chloride and bromide anions: determination of relative free energy by computer simulation. J Am Chem Soc 107:7793–7794. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00311a112
Bash P, Singh U, Langridge R, Kollman P (1987) Free energy calculations by computer simulation. Science 236(80):564–568. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3576184
Kollman P (1993) Free energy calculations: applications to chemical and biochemical phenomena. Chem Rev 93:2395–2417. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr00023a004
Jorgensen WL (1989) Free energy calculations: a breakthrough for modeling organic chemistry in solution. Acc Chem Res 22:184–189. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar00161a004
Aqvist J, Medina C, Samuelsson JE (1994) A new method for predicting binding affinity in computer-aided drug design. Protein Eng 7:385–391
Lee FS, Chu ZT, Bolger MB, Warshel A (1992) Calculations of antibody-antigen interactions: microscopic and semi-microscopic evaluation of the free energies of binding of phosphorylcholine analogs to McPC603. Protein Eng 5:215–228. https://doi.org/10.1093/protein/5.3.215
Ermak DL, McCammon JA (1978) Brownian dynamics with hydrodynamic interactions. J Chem Phys 69:1352. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.436761
Adcock SA, McCammon JA (2006) Molecular dynamics: survey of methods for simulating the activity of proteins. Chem Rev 106:1589–1615. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr040426m
Bek S, Jakobsson E (1994) Brownian dynamics study of a multiply-occupied cation channel: application to understanding permeation in potassium channels. Biophys J 66:1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-3495(94)80884-7
Sines J, Allison S, McCammon JA (1990) Brownian dynamics simulation of the superoxide-superoxide dismutase reaction: iron and manganese enzymes. J Phys Chem 94:959–961
Northrup SH, Erickson HP (1992) Kinetics of protein–protein association explained by Brownian dynamics computer simulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89:3338–3342
Kozack RE, Subramaniam S (1993) Brownian dynamics simulations of molecular recognition in an antibody-antigen system. Protein Sci 2:915–926. https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.5560020605
Gabdoulline RR, Wade RC (1997) Simulation of the diffusional association of barnase and barstar. Biophys J 72:1917–1929. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-3495(97)78838-6
Gabdoulline RR, Wade RC (1998) Brownian dynamics simulation of protein–protein diffusional encounter. Methods 14:329–341. https://doi.org/10.1006/meth.1998.0588
Deganutti G, Cuzzolin A, Ciancetta A, Moro S (2015) Understanding allosteric interactions in G protein-coupled receptors using supervised molecular dynamics: a prototype study analysing the human A3 adenosine receptor positive allosteric modulator LUF6000. Bioorg Med Chem 23:4065–4071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmc.2015.03.039
Cuzzolin A, Sturlese M, Deganutti G et al (2016) Deciphering the complexity of ligand-protein recognition pathways using supervised molecular dynamics (SuMD) simulations. J Chem Inf Model 56:687–705. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00702
Paoletta S, Sabbadin D, von Kügelgen I et al (2015) Modeling ligand recognition at the P2Y12 receptor in light of X-ray structural information. J Comput Aided Mol Des 29:737–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-015-9858-z
Lin JH, Lu AYH (1997) Role of pharmacokinetics and metabolism in drug discovery and development. Pharmacol Rev 49:403–449
Gallo JM (2010) Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic-driven drug development. Mt Sinai J Med A J Transl Pers Med 77:381–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/msj.20193
Alavijeh MS, Chishty M, Qaiser MZ, Palmer AM (2005) Drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, the blood-brain barrier, and central nervous system drug discovery. NeuroRx 2:554–571. https://doi.org/10.1602/neurorx.2.4.554
Altshuler J, Flanagan A, Guy P et al (2001) A revolution in R&D: how genomics and genetics are transforming the biopharmaceutical industry. Boston Consulting Group, Boston
Davis AM, Riley RJ (2004) Predictive ADMET studies, the challenges and the opportunities. Curr Opin Chem Biol 8:378–386
White RE (1998) Short-and long-term projections about the use of drug metabolism in drug discovery and development. Drug Metab Dispos 26:1213–1216
Eddershaw PJ, Beresford AP, Bayliss MK (2000) ADME/PK as part of a rational approach to drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 5:409–414
Kola I, Landis J (2004) Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov 3:711
Harris CJ, Hill RD, Sheppard DW et al (2011) The design and application of target-focused compound libraries. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 14:521–531
Paricharak S, Méndez-Lucio O, Chavan Ravindranath A et al (2016) Data-driven approaches used for compound library design, hit triage and bioactivity modeling in high-throughput screening. Brief Bioinform 19(2):277–285. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbw105
Chuprina A, Lukin O, Demoiseaux R et al (2010) Drug-and lead-likeness, target class, and molecular diversity analysis of 7.9 million commercially available organic compounds provided by 29 suppliers. J Chem Inf Model 50:470–479
Oprea TI, Allu TK, Fara DC et al (2007) Lead-like, drug-like or “Pub-like”: how different are they? J Comput Aided Mol Des 21:113–119
Baell JB, Holloway GA (2010) New substructure filters for removal of pan assay interference compounds (PAINS) from screening libraries and for their exclusion in bioassays. J Med Chem 53:2719–2740. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm901137j
Metz JT, Huth JR, Hajduk PJ (2007) Enhancement of chemical rules for predicting compound reactivity towards protein thiol groups. J Comput Aided Mol Des 21:139–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-007-9109-z
Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank the facilities under Center of Excellence and Builder project, Department of Biotechnology (DBT), for supporting the computational work and DST purse for software support. SKP is supported by DBT-BINC fellowship. The authors thank all group members and Pawan Kumar for valuable input on improving the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Panday, S.K., Ghosh, I. (2019). In Silico Structure-Based Prediction of Receptor–Ligand Binding Affinity: Current Progress and Challenges. In: Mohan, C. (eds) Structural Bioinformatics: Applications in Preclinical Drug Discovery Process. Challenges and Advances in Computational Chemistry and Physics, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05282-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05282-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05281-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05282-9
eBook Packages: Chemistry and Materials ScienceChemistry and Material Science (R0)