Search

Using the D3R Grand Challenge 4 dataset containing Beta-secretase 1 (BACE) and Cathepsin S (CatS) inhibitors, we have evaluated the performance of our in-house docking workflow that involves in the first step the selection of the most suitable docking software for the system of interest based on structural and functional information available in public databases, followed by the docking of the dataset to predict the binding modes and ranking of ligands. The macrocyclic nature of the BACE ligands brought additional challenges, which were dealt with by a careful preparation of the three-dimensional input structures for ligands. This provided top-performing predictions for BACE, in contrast with CatS, where the predictions in the absence of guiding constraints provided poor results. These results highlight the importance of previous structural knowledge that is needed for correct predictions on some challenging targets. After the end of the challenge, we also carried out free energy calculations (i.e. in a non-blinded manner) for CatS using the pmx software and several force fields (AMBER, Charmm). Using knowledge-based starting pose construction allowed reaching remarkable accuracy for the CatS free energy estimates. Interestingly, we show that the use of a consensus result, by averaging the results from different force fields, increases the prediction accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the last few years, we have developed a docking protocol involving two steps: (i) the choice of the most appropriate docking software and parameters for the system of interest using structural and functional information available in public databases (PDB, ChEMBL, PubChem Assay, BindingDB, etc.); (ii) the docking of ligand dataset to provide a prediction for the binding modes and ranking of ligands. We applied this protocol to the D3R Grand Challenge 3 dataset containing cathepsin S (CatS) inhibitors. Considering the size and conformational flexibility of ligands, the docking calculations afforded reasonable overall pose predictions, which are however dependent on the specific nature of each ligand. As expected, the correct ranking of docking poses is still challenging. Post-processing of docking poses with molecular dynamics simulations in explicit solvent provided a significantly better prediction, whereas free energy calculations on a subset of compounds brought no significant improvement in the ranking prediction compared with the direct ranking obtained from the scoring function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In drug design, an efficient structure-based optimization of a ligand needs the precise knowledge of the protein-ligand interactions. In the absence of experimental information, docking programs are necessary for ligand positioning, and the choice of a reliable program is essential for the success of such an optimization. The performances of four popular docking programs, Gold, Glide, Surflex and FlexX, were investigated using 100 crystal structures of complexes taken from the Directory of Useful Decoys-Enhanced database. Results: The ligand conformational sampling was rather efficient, with a correct pose found for a maximum of 84 complexes, obtained by Surflex. However, the ranking of the correct poses was not as efficient, with a maximum of 68 top-rank or 75 top-4 rank correct poses given by Glidescore. No relationship was found between either the sampling or the scoring performance of the four programs and the properties of either the targets or the small molecules, except for the number of ligand rotatable bonds. As well, no exploitable relationship was found between each program performance in docking and in virtual screening; a wrong top-rank pose may obtain a good score that allows it to be ranked among the most active compounds and vice versa. Also, to improve the results of docking, the strengths of the programs were combined either by using a rescoring procedure or the United Subset Consensus (USC). Oddly, positioning with Surflex and rescoring with Glidescore did not improve the results. However, USC based on docking allowed us to obtain a correct pose in the top-4 rank for 87 complexes. Finally, nine complexes were scrutinized, because a correct pose was found by at least one program but poorly ranked by all four programs. Contrarily to what was expected, except for one case, this was not due to weaknesses of the scoring functions. Conclusions: We conclude that the scoring functions should be improved to detect the correct poses, but sometimes their failure may be due to other varied considerations. To increase the chances of success, we recommend to use several programs and combine their results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In a structure-based virtual screening, the choice of the docking program is essential for the success of a hit identification. Benchmarks are meant to help in guiding this choice, especially when undertaken on a large variety of protein targets. Here, the performance of four popular virtual screening programs, Gold, Glide, Surflex and FlexX, is compared using the Directory of Useful Decoys-Enhanced database (DUD-E), which includes 102 targets with an average of 224 ligands per target and 50 decoys per ligand, generated to avoid biases in the benchmarking. Then, a relationship between these program performances and the properties of the targets or the small molecules was investigated. Results: The comparison was based on two metrics, with three different parameters each. The BEDROC scores with α = 80.5, indicated that, on the overall database, Glide succeeded (score > 0.5) for 30 targets, Gold for 27, FlexX for 14 and Surflex for 11. The performance did not depend on the hydrophobicity nor the openness of the protein cavities, neither on the families to which the proteins belong. However, despite the care in the construction of the DUD-E database, the small differences that remain between the actives and the decoys likely explain the successes of Gold, Surflex and FlexX. Moreover, the similarity between the actives of a target and its crystal structure ligand seems to be at the basis of the good performance of Glide. When all targets with significant biases are removed from the benchmarking, a subset of 47 targets remains, for which Glide succeeded for only 5 targets, Gold for 4 and FlexX and Surflex for 2. Conclusion: The performance dramatic drop of all four programs when the biases are removed shows that we should beware of virtual screening benchmarks, because good performances may be due to wrong reasons. Therefore, benchmarking would hardly provide guidelines for virtual screening experiments, despite the tendency that is maintained, i.e., Glide and Gold display better performance than FlexX and Surflex. We recommend to always use several programs and combine their results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In drug design, one may be confronted to the problem of finding hits for targets for which no small inhibiting molecules are known and only low-throughput experiments are available (like ITC or NMR studies), two common difficulties encountered in a typical academic setting. Using a virtual screening strategy like docking can alleviate some of the problems and save a considerable amount of time by selecting only top-ranking molecules, but only if the method is very efficient, i.e. when a good proportion of actives are found in the 1-10 % best ranked molecules. Results: The use of several programs (in our study, Gold, Surflex, FlexX and Glide were considered) shows a divergence of the results, which presents a difficulty in guiding the experiments. To overcome this divergence and increase the yield of the virtual screening, we created the standard deviation consensus (SDC) and variable SDC (vSDC) methods, consisting of the intersection of molecule sets from several virtual screening programs, based on the standard deviations of their ranking distributions. Conclusions: SDC allowed us to find hits for two new protein targets by testing only 9 and 11 small molecules from a chemical library of circa 15,000 compounds. Furthermore, vSDC, when applied to the 102 proteins of the DUD-E benchmarking database, succeeded in finding more hits than any of the four isolated programs for 13-60 % of the targets. In addition, when only 10 molecules of each of the 102 chemical libraries were considered, vSDC performed better in the number of hits found, with an improvement of 6-24 % over the 10 best-ranked molecules given by the individual docking programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]