Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Virtual fragment screening: exploration of MM-PBSA re-scoring

  • Published:
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An NMR fragment screening dataset with known binders and decoys was used to evaluate the ability of docking and re-scoring methods to identify fragment binders. Re-scoring docked poses using the Molecular Mechanics Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM-PBSA) implicit solvent model identifies additional active fragments relative to either docking or random fragment screening alone. Early enrichment, which is clearly most important in practice for selecting relatively small sets of compounds for experimental testing, is improved by MM-PBSA re-scoring. In addition, the value in MM-PBSA re-scoring of docked poses for virtual screening may be in lessening the effect of the variation in the protein complex structure used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hohwy M, Spadola L, Lundquist B, Hawtin P, Dahmen J, Groth-Clausen I, Nilsson E, Persdotter S, von Wachenfeldt K, Folmer RH, Edman K (2008) Novel prostaglandin D synthase inhibitors generated by fragment-based drug design. J Med Chem 51:2178–2186

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Howard S, Berdini V, Boulstridge JA, Carr MG, Cross DM, Curry J, Devine LA, Early TR, Fazal L, Gill AL, Heathcote M, Maman S, Matthews JE, McMenamin RL, Navarro EF, O’Brien MA, O’Reilly M, Rees DC, Reule M, Tisi D, Williams G, Vinkovic M, Wyatt PG (2009) Fragment-based discovery of the pyrazol-4-yl urea (AT9283), a multitargeted kinase inhibitor with potent aurora kinase activity. J Med Chem 52:379–388

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Edwards PD, Albert JS, Sylvester M, Aharony D, Andisik D, Callaghan O, Campbell JB, Carr RA, Chessari G, Congreve M, Frederickson M, Folmer RH, Geschwindner S, Koether G, Kolmodin K, Krumrine J, Mauger RC, Murray CW, Olsson LL, Patel S, Spear N, Tian G (2007) Application of fragment-based lead generation to the discovery of novel, cyclic amidine beta-secretase inhibitors with nanomolar potency, cellular activity, and high ligand efficiency. J Med Chem 50:5912–5925

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Geschwindner S, Olsson LL, Albert JS, Deinum J, Edwards PD, de Beer T, Folmer RH (2007) Discovery of a novel warhead against beta-secretase through fragment-based lead generation. J Med Chem 50:5903–5911

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Albert JS, Blomberg N, Breeze AL, Brown AJ, Burrows JN, Edwards PD, Folmer RH, Geschwindner S, Griffen EJ, Kenny PW, Nowak T, Olsson LL, Sanganee H, Shapiro AB (2007) An integrated approach to fragment-based lead generation: philosophy, strategy and case studies from AstraZeneca’s drug discovery programmes. Curr Top Med Chem 7:1600–1629

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Erlanson DA, Wells JA, Braisted AC (2004) Tethering: fragment-based drug discovery. Ann Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 33:199–223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Carr RAE, Congreve M, Murray CW, Rees DC (2005) Fragment-based lead discovery: leads by design. Drug Discov Today 10:987–992

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hopkins AL, Groom CR, Alex A (2004) Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov Today 9:430–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kuntz ID, Chen K, Sharp KA, Kollman PA (1999) The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:9997–10002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Abad-Zapatero C, Metz JT (2005) Ligand efficiency indices as guideposts for drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 10:464–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ (1997) Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 23:3–25

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Oprea TI (2000) Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J Comput Aided Mol Des 14:251–264

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Oprea TI, Davis AM, Teague SJ, Leeson PD (2001) Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 41:1308–1315

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng H-Y, Smith BR, Ward KW, Kopple KD (2002) Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J Med Chem 45:2615–2623

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Joseph-McCarthy D (2009) Challenges of fragment screening. J Comput Aided Mol Des 23:449–451

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Marcou G, Rognan D (2006) Optimizing fragment and scaffold docking by use of molecular interaction fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model 47:195–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Teotico DG, Babaoglu K, Rocklin GJ, Ferreira RS, Giannetti AM, Shoichet BK (2009) Docking for fragment inhibitors of AmpC beta-lactamase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:7455–7460

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Congreve M, Chessari G, Tisi D, Woodhead AJ (2008) Recent developments in fragment-based drug discovery. J Med Chem 51:3661–3680

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Southall NT, Dill KA, Haymet ADJ (2001) A view of the hydrophobic effect. J Phys Chem B 106:521–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ball P (2007) Water as an active constituent in cell biology. Chem Rev 108:74–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chandler D (2005) Interfaces and the driving force of hydrophobic assembly. Nature 437:640–647

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Blokzijl W, Engberts JBFN (1993) Hydrophobic effects. Opinions and facts. Angew Chem Int Ed 32:1545–1579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ferrara P, Gohlke H, Price DJ, Klebe G, Brooks CL (2004) Assessing scoring functions for protein − ligand interactions. J Med Chem 47:3032–3047

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Feig M, Onufriev A, Lee MS, Im W, Case DA, Brooks CL (2004) Performance comparison of generalized born and Poisson methods in the calculation of electrostatic solvation energies for protein structures. J Comput Chem 25:265–284

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kollman PA, Massova I, Reyes C, Kuhn B, Huo S, Chong L, Lee M, Lee T, Duan Y, Wang W, Donini O, Cieplak P, Srinivasan J, Case DA, Cheatham TE (2000) Calculating structures and free energies of complex molecules: combining molecular mechanics and continuum models. Acc Chem Res 33:889–897

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Beuming T, Farid R, Sherman W (2009) High-energy water sites determine peptide binding affinity and specificity of PDZ domains. Prot Sci 18:1609–1619

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Clausen RP, Naur P, Kristensen AS, Greenwood JR, Strange M, Brauner-Osborne H, Jensen AA, Nielsen AST, Geneser U, Ringgaard LM, Nielsen B, Pickering DS, Brehm L, Gajhede M, Krogsgaard-Larsen P, Kastrup JS (2009) The glutamate receptor GluR5 agonist (S)-2-Amino-3-(3-hydroxy-7,8-dihydro- 6H-cyclohepta[d]isoxazol-4-yl)propionic acid and the 8-methyl analogue: synthesis, molecular pharmacology, and biostructural characterization. J Med Chem 52:4911–4922

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Abel R, Young T, Farid R, Berne BJ, Friesner RA (2008) Role of the active-site solvent in the thermodynamics of factor XA ligand binding. J Am Chem Soc 130:2817–2831

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Shivakumar D, Deng Y, Roux B (2009) Computations of absolute solvation free energies of small molecules using explicit and implicit solvent model. J Chem Theory Comput 5:919–930

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Barillari C, Taylor J, Viner R, Essex JW (2007) Classification of water molecules in protein binding sites. J Am Chem Soc 129:2577–2587

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sitkoff D, Sharp KA, Honig B (1994) Accurate calculation of hydration free energies using macroscopic solvent models. J Phys Chem 98:1978–1988

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Massova I, Kollman PA (2000) Combined molecular mechanical and continuum solvent approach (MM-PBSA/GBSA) to predict ligand binding. Perspect Drug Discov Des 18:113–135

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Honig B, Nicholls A (1995) Classical electrostatics in biology and chemistry. Science 268:1144–1149

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Gilson MK, Honig BH (1987) Calculation of electrostatic potentials in an enzyme active site. Nature 330:84–86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Edinger SR, Cortis C, Shenkin PS, Friesner RA (1997) Solvation free energies of peptides: comparison of approximate continuum solvation models with accurate solution of the poisson—boltzmann equation. J Phys Chem B 101:1190–1197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Levy RM, Zhang LY, Gallicchio E, Felts AK (2003) On the nonpolar hydration free energy of proteins: surface area and continuum solvent models for the solute−solvent interaction energy. J Am Chem Soc 125:9523–9530

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Halperin I, Ma B, Wolfson H, Nussinov R (2002) Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins 47:409–443

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Jain AN (2006) Scoring functions for protein-ligand docking. Curr Protein Pept Sci 7:407–420

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Thompson DC, Humblet C, Joseph-McCarthy D (2008) Investigation of MM-PBSA rescoring of docking poses. J Chem Inf Model 48:1081–1091

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Lyne PD, Lamb ML, Saeh JC (2006) Accurate prediction of the relative potencies of members of a series of kinase inhibitors using molecular docking and MM-GBSA scoring. J Med Chem 49:4805–4808

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Huang N, Kalyanaraman C, Irwin JJ, Jacobson MP (2005) Physics-based scoring of protein − ligand complexes: enrichment of known inhibitors in large-scale virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 46:243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kawatkar S, Wang H, Czerminski R, Joseph-McCarthy D (2009) Virtual fragment screening: an exploration of various docking and scoring protocols for fragments using Glide. J Comput Aided Mol Des 23:527–539

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Ikai K, Ujihara M, Fujii K, Urade Y (1989) Inhibitory effect of tranilast on prostaglandin D synthetase. Biochem Pharmacol 38:2673–2676

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Aritake K, Kado Y, Inoue T, Miyano M, Urade Y (2006) Structural and functional characterization of HQL-79, an orally selective inhibitor of human hematopoietic prostaglandin D synthase. J Biol Chem 281:15277–15286

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Kaminski GA, Friesner RA, Tirado-Rives J, Jorgensen WL (2001) Evaluation and reparametrization of the OPLS-AA force field for proteins via comparison with accurate quantum chemical calculations on peptides. J Phys Chem B 105:6474–6487

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Weininger D (1988) SMILES 1. Introduction and encoding rules. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 28:31–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Kenny PW, Sadowski J (2004) Structure modification in chemical databases. In: Opera TI (ed) Chemoinformatics in drug discovery. Wiley, Weinheim, pp 271–285

    Google Scholar 

  49. Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, Halgren TA, Klicic JJ, Mainz DT, Repasky MP, Knoll EH, Shelley M, Perry JK, Shaw DE, Francis P, Shenkin PS (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 47:1739–1749

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Halgren TA, Murphy RB, Friesner RA, Beard HS, Frye LL, Pollard WT, Banks JL (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J Med Chem 47:1750–1759

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Meng EC, Shoichet BK, Kuntz ID (1992) Automated docking with grid-based energy evaluation. J Comput Chem 13:505–524

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Meng EC, Gschwend DA, Blaney JM, Kuntz ID (1993) Orientational sampling and rigid-body minimization in molecular docking. Proteins: Struct, Funct, Bioinf 17:266–278

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Bondi A (1964) van der Waals volumes and radii. J Phys Chem 68:441–451

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Halgren TA (1996) Merck molecular force field. I. Basis, form, scope, parameterization, and performance of MMFF94. J Comput Chem 17:490–519

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Halgren TA (1996) Merck molecular force field. II. MMFF94 van der Waals and electrostatic parameters for intermolecular interactions. J Comput Chem 17:520–552

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Tanford C (1979) Interfacial free energy and the hydrophobic effect. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 76:4175–4176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Triballeau N, Acher F, Brabet I, Pin JP, Bertrand HO (2005) Virtual screening workflow development guided by the “receiver operating characteristic” curve approach. Application to high-throughput docking on metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 4. J Med Chem 48:2534–2547

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Sing T, Sander O, Beerenwinkel N, Lengauer T (2005) ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics 21:3940–3941

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Wildman SA, Crippen GM (1999) Prediction of physicochemical parameters by atomic contributions. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 39:868–873

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Steve Wesolowski for useful discussions and comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Infection Innovative Medicines Unit, Chemistry Department, AstraZeneca, R&D Boston, 35 Gatehouse Drive, Waltham, MA, 02451, USA

    Sameer Kawatkar, Demetri Moustakas, Matthew Miller & Diane Joseph-McCarthy

Authors
  1. Sameer Kawatkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Demetri Moustakas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Diane Joseph-McCarthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diane Joseph-McCarthy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kawatkar, S., Moustakas, D., Miller, M. et al. Virtual fragment screening: exploration of MM-PBSA re-scoring. J Comput Aided Mol Des 26, 921–934 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-012-9590-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-012-9590-x

Keywords