Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Binding pose and affinity prediction in the 2016 D3R Grand Challenge 2 using the Wilma-SIE method

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

Abstract

The Farnesoid X receptor (FXR) exhibits significant backbone movement in response to the binding of various ligands and can be a challenge for pose prediction algorithms. As part of the D3R Grand Challenge 2, we tested Wilma-SIE, a rigid-protein docking method, on a set of 36 FXR ligands for which the crystal structures had originally been blinded. These ligands covered several classes of compounds. To overcome the rigid protein limitations of the method, we used an ensemble of publicly available structures for FXR from the PDB. The use of the ensemble allowed Wilma-SIE to predict poses with average and median RMSDs of 2.3 and 1.4 Å, respectively. It was quite clear, however, that had we used a single structure for the receptor the success rate would have been much lower. The most successful predictions were obtained on chemical classes for which one or more crystal structures of the receptor bound to a molecule of the same class was available. In the absence of a crystal structure for the class, observing a consensus binding mode for the ligands of the class using one or more receptor structures of other classes seemed to be indicative of a reasonable pose prediction. Affinity prediction proved to be more challenging with generally poor correlation with experimental IC50s (Kendall tau ~ 0.3). Even when the 36 crystal structures were used the accuracy of the predicted affinities was not appreciably improved. A possible cause of difficulty is the internal energy strain arising from conformational differences in the receptor across complexes, which may need to be properly estimated and incorporated into the SIE scoring function.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pagadala NS, Syed K, Tuszynski J (2017) Software for molecular docking: a review. Biophys Rev 9(2):91–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Guedes IA, de Magalhães CS, Dardenne LE (2014) Receptor–ligand molecular docking. Biophys Rev 6(1):75–87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Li Y, Han L, Liu Z, Wang R (2014) Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 2. Evaluation methods and general results. J Chem Inf Model 54(6):1717–1736

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gathiaka S, Liu S, Chiu M, Yang H, Stuckey JA, Kang YN, Delproposto J, Kubish G, Dunbar JB, Carlson HA, Burley SK, Walters WP, Amaro RE, Feher VA, Gilson MK (2016) D3R Grand Challenge 2015: evaluation of protein–ligand pose and affinity predictions. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 30(9):651–668

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Yin J, Henriksen NM, Slochower DR, Shirts MR, Chiu MW, Mobley DL, Gilson MK (2017) Overview of the SAMPL5 host–guest challenge: are we doing better?. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 31(1):1–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Carlson HA (2016) Lessons learned over four benchmark exercises from the community structure–activity resource. J Chem Inf Model 56(6):951–954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Yoon S, Welsh WJ (2004) Identification of a minimal subset of receptor conformations for improved multiple conformation docking and two-step scoring. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44(1):88–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Totrov M, Abagyan R (2008) Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative. Curr Opin Struct Biol 18(2):178–184

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bottegoni G, Rocchia W, Rueda M, Abagyan R, Cavalli A (2011) Systematic exploitation of multiple receptor conformations for virtual ligand screening. PLoS ONE 6(5):e18845

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bietz S, Rarey M (2016) SIENA: efficient compilation of selective protein binding site ensembles. J Chem Inf Model 56(1):248–259

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Naïm M, Bhat S, Rankin KN, Dennis S, Chowdhury SF, Siddiqi I, Drabik P, Sulea T, Bayly C, Jakalian A, Purisima EO (2007) Solvated interaction energy (SIE) for scoring protein-ligand binding affinities. 1. Exploring the parameter space. J Chem Inf Model 47(1):122–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cui Q, Sulea T, Schrag JD, Munger C, Hung M-N, Naïm M, Cygler M, Purisima EO (2008) Molecular dynamics—solvated interaction energy studies of protein-protein interactions: the MP1-p14 scaffolding complex. J Mol Biol 379(4):787–802

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sulea T, Purisima EO (2012) The solvated interaction energy (SIE) method for scoring binding affinities. Methods Mol Biol 819:295–303

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sulea T, Hogues H, Purisima EO (2012) Exhaustive search and solvated interaction energy (SIE) for virtual screening and affinity prediction. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 26(5):617–633

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Corbeil CR, Sulea T, Purisima EO (2010) Rapid prediction of solvation free energy. 2. The first-shell hydration (FiSH) continuum model. J Chem Theory Comput 6(5):1622–1637

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gaieb Z, Liu S, Gathiaka S, Chiu M, Yang H, Shao C, Feher VA, Walters P, Kuhn B, Rudolph MG, Burley SK, Gilson MK, Amaro RE (2017) D3R Grand Challenge 2: blind prediction of protein-ligand poses, affinity rankings, and relative binding free energies. J Comput Aided Mol Des (in press)

  17. Hawkins PCD, Skillman AG, Warren GL, Ellingson BA, Stahl MT (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(4):572–584

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hogues H, Sulea T, Purisima E (2014) Exhaustive docking and solvated interaction energy scoring: lessons learned from the SAMPL4 challenge. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 28(4):417–427

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Case DA, Cheatham TE III, Darden T, Gohlke H, Luo R, Merz KM Jr, Onufriev A, Simmerling C, Wang B, Woods RJ (2005) The amber biomolecular simulation programs. J Comput Chem 26(16):1668–1688

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sulea T, Purisima EO (2012) Predicting hydration free energies of polychlorinated aromatic compounds from the SAMPL-3 data set with FiSH and LIE models. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 26(5):661–667

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hogues H, Sulea T, Purisima EO (2016) Evaluation of the Wilma-SIE virtual screening method in community structure–activity resource 2013 and 2014 blind challenges. J Chem Inf Model 56(6):955–964

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank OpenEye Scientific Software for providing a copy of Omega, Filter and QUACPAC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enrico O. Purisima.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1639 KB)

Supplementary material 2 (PDF 57 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hogues, H., Sulea, T., Gaudreault, F. et al. Binding pose and affinity prediction in the 2016 D3R Grand Challenge 2 using the Wilma-SIE method. J Comput Aided Mol Des 32, 143–150 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-017-0071-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-017-0071-0

Keywords

Navigation