Search

Recently the first community-wide assessments of the prediction of the structures of complexes between proteins and small molecule ligands have been reported in the so-called GPCR Dock 2008 and 2010 assessments. In the current review we discuss the different steps along the protein-ligand modeling workflow by critically analyzing the modeling strategies we used to predict the structures of protein-ligand complexes we submitted to the recent GPCR Dock 2010 challenge. These representative test cases, focusing on the pharmaceutically relevant G Protein-Coupled Receptors, are used to demonstrate the strengths and challenges of the different modeling methods. Our analysis indicates that the proper performance of the sequence alignment, introduction of structural adjustments guided by experimental data, and the usage of experimental data to identify protein-ligand interactions are critical steps in the protein-ligand modeling protocol. © 2011 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

State‐of‐the‐art methods based on CNS and CYANA were used to recalculate the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) solution structures of 500+ proteins for which coordinates and NMR restraints are available from the Protein Data Bank. Curated restraints were obtained from the BioMagResBank FRED database. Although the original NMR structures were determined by various methods, they all were recalculated by CNS and CYANA and refined subsequently by restrained molecular dynamics (CNS) in a hydrated environment. We present an extensive analysis of the results, in terms of various quality indicators generated by PROCHECK and WHAT_CHECK. On average, the quality indicators for packing and Ramachandran appearance moved one standard deviation closer to the mean of the reference database. The structural quality of the recalculated structures is discussed in relation to various parameters, including number of restraints per residue, NOE completeness and positional root mean square deviation (RMSD). Correlations between pairs of these quality indicators were generally low; for example, there is a weak correlation between the number of restraints per residue and the Ramachandran appearance according to WHAT_CHECK (r = 0.31). The set of recalculated coordinates constitutes a unified database of protein structures in which potential user‐ and software‐dependent biases have been kept as small as possible. The database can be used by the structural biology community for further development of calculation protocols, validation tools, structure‐based statistical approaches and modeling. The RECOORD database of recalculated structures is publicly available from http://www.ebi.ac.uk/msd/recoord. Proteins 2005.