The Use of Dynamic Pharmacophore in Computer-Aided Hit Discovery: A Case Study

  • Ugo PerriconeEmail author
  • Marcus Wieder
  • Thomas Seidel
  • Thierry Langer
  • Alessandro Padova
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1824)


In recent years pharmacophore modeling has become increasingly popular due to the development of software solutions and improvement in algorithms that allowed researchers to focus on interactions between protein and ligands instead of technical details of the software. At the same time, progress in computer hardware made molecular dynamics (MD) simulations on regular PC hardware possible. MD simulations are usually used, within the virtual screening process, to take into account the flexibility of the target and studying it in more realistic way. In order to do so, it is customary to use simulations before the virtual screening process and then use them for collecting some specific conformation of the target used. Furthermore, some researchers have demonstrated that the use of multiple crystal structures of the same protein can be valuable to better explore the role of the ligand within the binding pocket and then evaluate the most important interactions that are created during the host-guest recognition process. Findings derived from the MD analysis, especially focused on interactions, can be in fact exploited as features for pharmacophore generation or constraints to be used in the molecular docking as integrated steps of the whole virtual screening process. In this chapter, we will present the recent advances in the field pharmacophore modeling combined with the use of MD, a field well explored by our research group in the last 2 years.

Key words

Pharmacophore modeling Molecular dynamics Dynamic pharmacophore Structure-based drug design Virtual screening 


  1. 1.
    DesJarlais RL, Seibel GL, Kuntz ID et al (1990) Structure-based design of nonpeptide inhibitors specific for the human immunodeficiency virus 1 protease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 87(17):6644–6648. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acharya KR, Sturrock ED, Riordan JF et al (2003) Ace revisited: a new target for structure-based drug design. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2(11):891–902. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spyrakis F, Benedetti P, Decherchi S et al (2015) A pipeline to enhance ligand virtual screening: integrating molecular dynamics and fingerprints for ligand and proteins. J Chem Inf Model 55(10):2256–2274. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kapetanovic IM (2008) Computer aided drug discovery and development: in silico-chemico-biological approach. Chem Biol Interact 171(2):165–176. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cerqueira NMFSA, Gesto D, Oliveira EF et al (2015) Receptor-based virtual screening protocol for drug discovery. Arch Biochem Biophys 582:56–67. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang CA, Ai R, Gutierrez M et al (2012) Homology modeling of cannabinoid receptors: discovery of cannabinoid analogues for therapeutic use. In: Baron R (ed) Computational drug discovery and design. Methods in molecular biology (methods and protocols). Springer, New York.,779-465-0_35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ou-Yang S-S, Lu J-Y, Kong X-Q et al (2012) Computational drug discovery. Acta Pharmacol Sin 33(9):1131–1140. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dias R, de Azevedo WF (2008) Molecular docking algorithms. Curr Drug Targets 9(12):1040–1047. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wu F, Xu T, He G et al (2012) Discovery of novel focal adhesion kinase inhibitors using a hybrid protocol of virtual screening approach based on multicomplex-based pharmacophore and molecular docking. Int J Mol Sci 13(12):15668–15678. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agrawal R, Jain P, Dikshit SN et al (2013) Ligand-based pharmacophore detection, screening of potential pharmacophore and docking studies, to get effective glycogen synthase kinase inhibitors. Med Chem Res 22(11):5504–5535. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dror O, Schneidman-Duhovny D, Inbar Y et al (2009) Novel approach for efficient pharmacophore-based virtual screening: method and applications. J Chem Inf Model 49(10):2333–2343. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Langer T (2011) Pharmacophores for medicinal chemists: a personal view. Future Med Chem 3(8):901–904. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wolber G, Sippl W (2015) Pharmacophore identification and pseudo-receptor modeling. In: Wermuth CG et al (eds) The practice of medicinal chemistry, 4th edn. Academic Press, London, pp 489–510.,205-0.00021-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang S-Y (2010) Pharmacophore modeling and applications in drug discovery: challenges and recent advances. Drug Discov Today 15(11-12):444–450. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Langer T, Wolber G (2004) Pharmacophore definition and 3D searches. Drug Discov Today Technol 1(3):203–207. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tutone M, Perricone U, Almerico AM (2017) Conf-VLKA: a structure-based revisitation of the virtual lock-and-key approach. J Mol Graph Model 71:50–57. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jorgensen WL (2004) The many roles of computation in drug discovery. Science 303(5665):1813–1818. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teague SJ (2003) Implications of protein flexibility for drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2(7):527–541. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    B-Rao C, Subramanian J, Sharma SD (2009) Managing protein flexibility in docking and its applications. Drug Discov Today 14(7-8):394–400. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gallicchio E, Levy RM (2011) Advances in all atom sampling methods for modeling protein-ligand binding affinities. Curr Opin Struct Biol 21(2):161–166. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen YC (2015) Beware of docking! Trends Pharmacol Sci 36(2):78–95. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shin WH, Kim JK, Kim DS et al (2013) GalaxyDock2: protein-ligand docking using beta-complex and global optimization. J Comput Chem 34(30):2647–2656. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sherman W, Day T, Jacobson MP et al (2006) Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. J Med Chem 49(2):534–553. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koska J, Spassov VZ, Maynard AJ et al (2008) Fully automated molecular mechanics based induced fit protein-ligand docking method. J Chem Inf Model 48(10):1965–1973. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bolia A, Gerek ZN, Ozkan SB (2014) BP-dock: a flexible docking scheme for exploring protein-ligand interactions based on unbound structures. J Chem Inf Model 54(3):913–925. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ivetac A, McCammon JA (2011) Molecular recognition in the case of flexible targets. Curr Pharm Des 17(17):1663–1671. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Forman-Kay JD (1999) The “dynamics” in the thermodynamics of binding. Nat Struct Biol 6:1086–1087. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nichols SE, Baron R, McCammon JA (2012) On the use of molecular dynamics receptor conformations for virtual screening. In: Baron R (ed) Computational drug discovery and design. Methods in molecular biology (methods and protocols), vol 819. Springer, New York, NY.,779-465-0_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Totrov M, Abagyan R (2008) Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative. Curr Opin Struct Biol 18(2):178–184. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Verkhivker GM, Bouzida D, Gehlhaar DK et al (2002) Complexity and simplicity of ligand-macromolecule interactions: the energy landscape perspective. Curr Opin Struct Biol 12(2):197–203. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abagyan R, Rueda M, Bottegoni G (2010) Recipes for the selection of experimental protein conformations for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 50(1):186–193. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Isvoran A, Badel A, Craescu CT et al (2011) Exploring NMR ensembles of calcium binding proteins: perspectives to design inhibitors of protein-protein interactions. BMC Struct Biol 11:24. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Miteva MA, Robert CH, Maréchal JD et al (2011) Receptor Flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening. In: Miteva MA (ed) In silico lead discovery. Bentham Science Publishers, Emirate of SharjahGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Osguthorpe DJ, Sherman W, Hagler AT (2012) Generation of receptor structural ensembles for virtual screening using binding site shape analysis and clustering. Chem Biol Drug Des 80(2):182–193. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Asses Y, Venkatraman V, Leroux V et al (2012) Exploring c-Met kinase flexibility by sampling and clustering its conformational space. Proteins 80(4):1227–1238. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Degliesposti G, Portioli C, Parenti MD et al (2011) BEAR, a novel virtual screening methodology for drug discovery. J Biomol Screen 16(1):129–133. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hou T, Wang J, Li Y et al (2011) Assessing the performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods: 1. The accuracy of binding free energy calculations based on molecular dynamics simulations. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 51(1):69–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Proctor EA, Yin S, Tropsha A et al (2012) Discrete molecular dynamics distinguishes nativelike binding poses from decoys in difficult targets. Biophys J 102(1):144–151. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Karplus M, McCammon JA (2002) Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules. Nat Struct Biol 9:646–652. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Deng J, Lee KW, Sanchez T et al (2005) Dynamic receptor-based pharmacophore model development and its application in designing novel HIV-1 integrase inhibitors. J Med Chem 48(5):1496–1505. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ogrizek M, Turk S, Lesnik S et al (2015) Molecular dynamics to enhance structure-based virtual screening on cathepsin B. J Comput Aided Mol Des 29(8):707–712. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tutone M, Chinnici A, Almerico AM et al (2016) Design, synthesis and preliminary evaluation of dopamine-amino acid conjugates as potential D1 dopaminergic modulators. Eur J Med Chem 124:435–444. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Barril X, Morley SD (2005) Unveiling the full potential of flexible receptor docking using multiple crystallographic structures. J Med Chem 48(13):4432–4443. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bolstad ESD, Anderson AC (2009) In pursuit of virtual lead optimization: pruning ensembles of receptor structures for increased efficiency and accuracy during docking. Proteins 75(1):62–74. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Amaro RE, Baron R, McCammon JA (2008) An improved relaxed complex scheme for receptor flexibility in computer-aided drug design. J Comput Aided Mol Des 22(9):693–705. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Martiny VY, Carbonell P, Lagorce D et al (2013) In silico mechanistic profiling to probe small molecule binding to Sulfotransferases. PLoS One 8(9):e73587. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rueda M, Bottegoni G, Abagyan R (2009) Consistent improvement of cross-docking results using binding site ensembles generated with elastic network normal modes. J Chem Inf Model 49(3):716–725. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Leis S, Zacharias M (2011) Efficient inclusion of receptor flexibility in grid-based protein-ligand docking. J Comput Chem 32:3433–3439. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Korb O, Olsson TSG, Bowden SJ et al (2012) Potential and limitations of ensemble docking. J Chem Inf Model 52(5):1262–1274. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sgobba M, Caporuscio F, Anighoro A et al (2012) Application of a post-docking procedure based on MM-PBSA and MM-GBSA on single and multiple protein conformations. Eur J Med Chem 58:431–440. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z et al (2000) The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28(1):235–242. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Liebeschuetz J, Hennemann J, Olsson T et al (2012) The good, the bad and the twisted: a survey of ligand geometry in protein crystal structures. J Comput Aided Mol Des 26(2):169–183. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Reynolds CH (2014) Protein-ligand cocrystal structures: we can do better. ACS Med Chem Lett 5(7):727–729. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mirjalili V, Feig M (2013) Protein structure refinement through structure selection and averaging from molecular dynamics ensembles. J Chem Theory Comput 9(2):1294–1303. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Whitesides GM, Krishnamurthy VM (2005) Designing ligands to bind proteins. Q Rev Biophys 38(4):385–395. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Deng J, Sanchez T, Neamati N et al (2006) Dynamic pharmacophore model optimization: identification of novel HIV-1 integrase inhibitors. J Med Chem 49(5):1684–1692. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bowman AL, Makriyannis A (2011) Approximating protein flexibility through dynamic pharmacophore models: application to fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH). J Chem Inf Model 51(12):3247–3253. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Carlson HA, Masukawa KM, Rubins K et al (2000) Developing a dynamic pharmacophore model for HIV-1 integrase. J Med Chem 43(11):2100–2114. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Choudhury C, Priyakumar UD, Sastry GN (2015) Dynamics based pharmacophore models for screening potential inhibitors of mycobacterial cyclopropane synthase. J Chem Inf Model 55(4):848–860. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mallik B, Morìkis D (2005) Development of a quasi-dynamic pharmacophore model for anti-complement peptide analogues. J Am Chem Soc 127(31):10967–10976. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Saez NJ, Mobli M, Bieri M et al (2011) A dynamic pharmacophore drives the interaction between Psalmotoxin-1 and the putative drug target acid-sensing ion channel 1a. Mol Pharmacol 80(5):796–808. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Thangapandian S, John S, Lee Y et al (2011) Dynamic structure-based pharmacophore model development: a new and effective addition in the histone deacetylase 8 (HDAC8) inhibitor discovery. Int J Mol Sci 12(12):9440–9462. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wieder M, Perricone U, Boresch S et al (2016) Evaluating the stability of pharmacophore features using molecular dynamics simulations. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 470(3):685–689. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wieder M, Garon A, Perricone U et al (2017) Common hits approach: combining pharmacophore modeling and molecular dynamics simulations. J Chem Inf Model 57(2):365–385. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Perricone U, Wieder M, Seidel T et al (2017) A molecular dynamics-shared pharmacophore approach to boost early-enrichment virtual screening: a case study on peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α. ChemMedChem 12(16):1399–1407. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cereto-Massague A, Ojeda MJ, Joosten RP et al (2013) The good, the bad and the dubious: VHELIBS, a validation helper for ligands and binding sites. J Cheminform 5:1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Madhavi Sastry G, Adzhigirey M, Day T et al (2013) Protein and ligand preparation: parameters, protocols, and influence on virtual screening enrichments. J Comput Aided Mol Des 27(3):221–234. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Eswar N, Webb B, Marti-Renom MA et al (2007) Comparative protein structure modeling using Modeller. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics 2:Unit 2.9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Guo Z, Mohanty U, Noehre J et al (2010) Probing the alpha-helical structural stability of stapled p53 peptides: molecular dynamics simulations and analysis. Chem Biol Drug Des 75(4):348–359. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Shivakumar D, Williams J, Wu YJ et al (2010) Prediction of absolute solvation free energies using molecular dynamics free energy perturbation and the OPLS force field. J Chem Theory Comput 6(5):1509–1519. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wolber G, Langer T (2005) LigandScout: 3-D pharmacophores derived from protein-bound ligands and their use as virtual screening filters. J Chem Inf Model 45(1):160–169. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wolber G, Seidel T, Bendix F et al (2008) Molecule-pharmacophore superpositioning and pattern matching in computational drug design. Drug Discov Today 13(1-2):23–29. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    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(7):1750–1759. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    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(7):1739–1749. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Olsson MHM, Søndergaard CR, Rostkowski M et al (2011) PROPKA3: consistent treatment of internal and surface residues in empirical p K a predictions. J Chem Theory Comput 7(2):525–537. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Søndergaard CR, Olsson MHM, Rostkowski M et al (2011) Improved treatment of ligands and coupling effects in empirical calculation and rationalization of p K a values. J Chem Theory Comput 7(7):2284–2295. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Mark P, Nilsson L (2001) Structure and dynamics of the TIP3P, SPC, and SPC/E water models at 298 K. J Phys Chem A 105(43):9954–9960. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Meza JC (2010) Steepest descent. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat 2(6):719–722. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Andrew G, Gao J (2007) Scalable training of L1 -regularized log-linear models, In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Machine learning - ICML ‘07, pp. 33–40Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Malouf R (2002) A comparison of algorithms for maximum entropy parameter estimation, In: Proceeding of the 6th conference on Natural language learning - COLING-02, pp. 1–7Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Mysinger MM, Carchia M, Irwin JJ et al (2012) Directory of useful decoys, enhanced (DUD-E): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking. J Med Chem 55(14):6582–6594. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Cereto-Massagué A, Guasch L, Valls C et al (2012) DecoyFinder: an easy-to-use python GUI application for building target-specific decoy sets. Bioinformatics 28(12):1661–1662. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Berthold MR, Cebron N, Dill F et al (2009) KNIME - the Konstanz information miner. SIGKDD Explor 11(1):26–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Zhao W, Hevener KE, White SW et al (2009) A statistical framework to evaluate virtual screening. BMC Bioinformatics 10:225. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Truchon JF, Bayly CI (2007) Evaluating virtual screening methods: good and bad metrics for the “early recognition” problem. J Chem Inf Model 47(2):488–508. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Fawcett T (2006) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognit Lett 27(8):861–874. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Buch I, Giorgino T, De Fabritiis G (2011) Complete reconstruction of an enzyme-inhibitor binding process by molecular dynamics simulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108(25):10184–10110,189. doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Legge FS, Budi A, Treutlein H et al (2006) Protein flexibility: multiple molecular dynamics simulations of insulin chain B. Biophys Chem 119(2):146–157. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Perez JJ, Tomas MS, Rubio-Martinez J (2016) Assessment of the sampling performance of multiple-copy dynamics versus a unique trajectory. J Chem Inf Model 56(10):1950–1962. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Wieder M, Perricone U, Seidel T et al (2016) Comparing pharmacophore models derived from crystal structures and from molecular dynamics simulations. Monatsh Chem 147(3):553–563. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ugo Perricone
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marcus Wieder
    • 2
    • 3
  • Thomas Seidel
    • 2
  • Thierry Langer
    • 2
  • Alessandro Padova
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer-Aided Drug Design Group, Fondazione Ri.MEDPalermoItaly
  2. 2.Faculty of Life Sciences, Department of Pharmaceutical ChemistryUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.Faculty of Chemistry, Department of Computational Biological ChemistryUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations