Skip to main content
Log in

Empirical scoring functions. II. The testing of an empirical scoring function for the prediction of ligand-receptor binding affinities and the use of Bayesian regression to improve the quality of the model

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

Abstract

This paper tests the performance of a simple empirical scoring function on a set of candidate designs produced by a de novo design package. The scoring function calculates approximate ligand-receptor binding affinities given a putative binding geometry. To our knowledge this is the first substantial test of an empirical scoring function of this type on a set of molecular designs which were then subsequently synthesised and assayed. The performance illustrates that the methods used to construct the scoring function and the reliance on plausible, yet potentially false, binding modes can lead to significant over-prediction of binding affinity in bad cases. This is anticipated on theoretical grounds and provides caveats on the reliance which can be placed when using the scoring function as a screen in the choice of molecular designs. To improve the predictability of the scoring function and to understand experimental results, it is important to perform subsequent Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) studies. In this paper, Bayesian regression is performed to improve the predictability of the scoring function in the light of the assay results. Bayesian regression provides a rigorous mathematical framework for the incorporation of prior information, in this case information from the original training set, into a regression on the assay results of the candidate molecular designs. The results indicate that Bayesian regression is a useful and practical technique when relevant prior knowledge is available and that the constraints embodied in the prior information can be used to improve the robustness and accuracy of regression models. We believe this to be the first application of Bayesian regression to QSAR analysis in chemistry.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Eldridge, M.D., Murray, C.W., Auton, T.R., Paolini, G.V. and Mee, R.P., J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 11 (1997) 425.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Böhm, H.-J., J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 8 (1994) 243.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Head, R.D., Smythe, M.L., Oprea, T.I., Waller, C.L., Green, S.M. and Marshall, G.R., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 118 (1996) 3959.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jain, A.J., J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 10 (1996) 427.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Murray, C.W., Clark, D.E., Auton, T.R., Firth, M.A., Li, J., Sykes, R.A., Waszkowycz, B., Westhead, D.R. and Young, S.C., J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 11 (1997) 193.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Young, S.C., Auton, T.R., Clark, D.E., Li, J., Liebeschuetz, J.W., Lowe, R., Mahler, J., Martin, H., Morgan, P.J., Murray, C.W., Rimmer, A.D., Waszkowycz, B.W. and Westhead, D.R., J. Med. Chem., submitted.

  7. O'Hagan, A., Kendall's Advanced Theory of Statistics, Volume 2B: Bayesian Inference, Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Banner, D.W. and Hadvary, P., J. Biol. Chem., 266 (1991) 20085.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bode, W., Turk, D. and Stürzebecher, J., Eur. J. Biochem., 193 (1990) 175.

    Google Scholar 

  10. DISCOVER, v 2.9.5, Molecular Simulations Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.

  11. CFF95 Forcefield, implemented in DISCOVER 2.9.5., Molecular Simulations Inc., San Diego, CA, USA.

  12. The NAG Fortran Library Manual, Mark 17, The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd, Oxford, U.K., 1995.

  13. Fersht, A.R., Shi, J., Knill-Jones, J., Lowe, D.M., Wilkinson, A.J., Blow, D.M., Brick, P., Carter, P., Waye, M.M.Y. and Winter, G., Nature, 314 (1985) 235.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Feng, D., Gardell, S.J., Dale Lewis, S., Bock, M.G., Chen, Z., Freidinger, R.M., Nayler-Olsen, A.M., Ramjit, H.M., Woltmann, R., Baskin, E.P., Lynch, J.J., Lucas, R., Shafer, J.A., Danacheck, K.B., Chen, I., Mao, S., Krueger, J.A., Hare, T.R., Mulichak, A.M. and Vacca, J.P., J. Med. Chem., 40 (1997) 3726.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ajay and Murcko, M.A., J. Med. Chem., 38 (1995) 4953.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Aqvist, J., Medina, C. and Samuelsson, J., Protein Eng., 3 (1994) 385.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kauvar, L.M., Higgins, D.L., Villar, H.O., Sportsman, J.R., Engqvist-Goldstein, A.E., Bukar, R., Bauer, K.E., Dilley, H.M. and Rocke, D.M., Chem. Biol., 2 (1995) 107.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Leo, A.J., Chem. Rev., 93 (1993) 1281.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Murray, C.W., Auton, T.R. & Eldridge, M.D. Empirical scoring functions. II. The testing of an empirical scoring function for the prediction of ligand-receptor binding affinities and the use of Bayesian regression to improve the quality of the model. J Comput Aided Mol Des 12, 503–519 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008040323669

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008040323669

Navigation