skip to main content
10.1145/2001576.2001590acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Bonding as a swarm: applying bee nest-site selection behaviour to protein docking

Published:12 July 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

The identification of protein binding sites and the prediction of protein-ligand complexes play a key role in the pharmaceutical drug design process and many domains of life sciences. Computational approaches for protein-ligand docking (or molecular docking) have received increased attention over the last years as they allow inexpensive and fast prediction of protein-ligand complexes. Here we introduce the principle of Bee Nest-Site Selection Optimisation (BNSO), which solves optimisation problems using a novel scheme inspired by the nest-site selection behaviour found in honeybees. Moreover, the first BNSO algorithm -- Bee-Nest -- is proposed and applied to molecular docking. The performance of Bee-Nest is tested on 173 docking instances from the PDBbind core set and compared to the performance of three reference algorithms. The results show that Bee-Nest could find ligand poses with very small energy levels. Interestingly, the reference Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) produces results that are qualitatively closer to wet-lab experimentally derived complexes but have higher energy levels than the results found by Bee-Nest. Our results highlight the superior performance of Bee-Nest in semi-local optimization for the molecular docking problem and suggests Bee-Nest's usefulness in a hybrid strategy.

References

  1. K. Diwold, M. Beekman, and M. Middendorf. Bee nest site selection as an optimization process. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems (Alife XII), pages 626--633. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. K. Diwold, M. Beekman, and M. Middendorf. Handbook of Swarm Intelligence - Concepts, Principles and Applications, chapter Honeybee Optimisation. Springer, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. M. Farooq. Bee-Inspired Protocol Engineering: From Nature to Networks. Natural Computation Series. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. I. Halperin, B. Ma, H. Wolfson, and R. Nussinov. Princliples of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics, 47:409--443, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. S. Janson, D. Merkle, and M. Middendorf. Molecular docking with multi-objective particle swarm optimization. Applied Soft Computing, 8:666--675, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. Janson, M. Middendorf, and M. Beekman. Searching for a new home -- scouting behavior of honeybee swarms. Behavioral Ecology, 18:384--392, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. G. Jones, P. Willett, and R. C. Glen. Molecular regcognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation. Journal of Molecular Biology, 245:43--53, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. P. Kampstra. Beanplot: A boxplot alternative for visual comparison of distributions. Journal of Statistical Software, 28, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. D. Karaboga and B. Akay. A survey: algorithms simulating bee swarm intelligence. Artificial Intelligence Review, 31:61--85, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. O. Korb, T. Stützle, and T. Exner. Plants: Application of ant colony optimization to structure-based drug design. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Ant Colony Optimization and Swarm Intelligence, ANTS 2006, volume 4150 of LNCS, pages 247--258. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. B. Liu, H. Chen, H. Huang, S. Hwang, and S. Ho. Flexible protein-ligand docking using particle swarm optimization. In IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation CEC2005, volume 1, pages 251--258, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. Matsumoto and T. Nishimura. Mersenne twister: a 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudo-random number generator. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, 8:3--30, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. R. Meier, M. Pippel, F. Brandt, W. Sippl, and C. Baldauf. PARADOCKS: A Framework for Molecular Docking with Population-Based Metaheuristics. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 50:879--889, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. I. Muegge. PMF scoring revisited. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 49(20):5895--5902, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. M. R. Myerscough. Dancing for a decision: a matrix model for nest-site choice by honeybees. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London series B, 270:577--582, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. T. Schmickl and K. Crailsheim. Trophallaxis within a robotic swarm: bio-inspired communication among robots in a swarm. Autonomous Robots, 25:171--188, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. K. M. Schultz, K. M. Passino, and T. D. Seeley. The mechanism of flight guidance in honeybee swarms: subtle guides or streaker bees? Journal of Experimental Biology, 7:3287--3295, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. T. D. Seeley. Honeybee Democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. T. D. Seeley and P. K. Visscher. Sensory coding of nest-site value in honeybee swarms. Journal of Experimental Biology, 211:3691--3697, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. R. Wang, X. Fang, Y. Lu, and S. Wang. The PDBbind database: collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 47(12):2977--2980, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Bonding as a swarm: applying bee nest-site selection behaviour to protein docking

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          GECCO '11: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation
          July 2011
          2140 pages
          ISBN:9781450305570
          DOI:10.1145/2001576

          Copyright © 2011 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 12 July 2011

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

          Upcoming Conference

          GECCO '24
          Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
          July 14 - 18, 2024
          Melbourne , VIC , Australia
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader