skip to main content
10.1145/3623264.3624463acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmigConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Player Exploration Patterns in Interactive Molecular Docking with Electrostatic Visual Cues

Published: 15 November 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Serious games rely on sensory cues from the system of interest to guide players in performing a specific task. For instance, a serious game used in research and education is interactive molecular docking, where players try to bind a small molecule (ligand) to a protein (receptor) exploring the high-dimensional space of possible molecular conformations. Players are guided by a score that depends on how strongly the two molecules attract or repel each other, and by visual inspection of the three-dimensional protein surface in search of cavities where the ligand may fit. In addition, some interactive molecular docking games can also display molecules according to the charge distribution on their surface, where positively and negatively charged regions are shown in different colors. It is assumed that this color scheme helps players, since attraction and repulsion of charges contribute to the electrostatic energy between the molecules, and thus the score. In this paper we test whether adding charge information as a visual cue contributes to higher scores and exploration of more favorable energy states. For two distinct sets of ligand-receptor pairs, to test our hypothesis we compare two models: One in which players have no electrostatic information, and the other where electrostatic colors are displayed, and players are told to match parts of the molecules that may attract each other based on their colors. We collect player data and cluster energy values into states, which are treated as Markov states. Transitions between states are interpreted as players making significant changes to the score and position of the molecules, with observation of different transition probabilities corresponding to distinct exploration patterns between the two models.

References

[1]
Torin Adamson, John Baxter, Kasra Manavi, April Suknot, Bruna Jacobson, Patrick Kelley, and Lydia Tapia. 2014. Molecular tetris: Crowdsourcing molecular docking using path-planning and haptic devices. Proceedings - Motion in Games 2014, MIG 2014 (11 2014), 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1145/2668084.2668086
[2]
Torin Adamson, Julian Antolin Camarena, Lydia Tapia, and Bruna Jacobson. 2019. Optimizing low energy pathways in receptor-ligand binding with motion planning. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM). IEEE, 2041–2048.
[3]
Oguzhan Alagoz, Heather Hsu, Andrew J Schaefer, and Mark S Roberts. 2010. Markov decision processes: a tool for sequential decision making under uncertainty. Medical Decision Making 30, 4 (2010), 474–483.
[4]
Oleg Y. Borbulevych, Kurt H. Piepenbrink, Brian E. Gloor, Daniel R. Scott, Ruth F. Sommese, David K. Cole, Andrew K. Sewell, and Brian M. Baker. 2009. T Cell Receptor Cross-reactivity Directed by Antigen-Dependent Tuning of Peptide-MHC Molecular Flexibility. Immunity 31, 6 (2009), 885–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2009.11.003
[5]
Richard J Boucherie and Nico M Van Dijk. 2017. Markov decision processes in practice. Vol. 248. Springer.
[6]
Anna Chavez, Torin Adamson, Lydia Tapia, and Bruna Jacobson. 2019. A Mobile Game for Crowdsourced Molecular Docking Pathways. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Motion, Interaction and Games (Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom) (MIG ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 5, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359566.3360055
[7]
Brian Y. Chen and Barry Honig. 2010. VASP: A Volumetric Analysis of Surface Properties Yields Insights into Protein-Ligand Binding Specificity. PLOS Computational Biology 6, 8 (08 2010), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000881
[8]
Seth Cooper, Firas Khatib, Adrien Treuille, Janos Barbero, Jeehyung Lee, Michael Beenen, Andrew Leaver-Fay, David Baker, Zoran Popović, and Foldit Players. 2010. Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature 466, 7307 (2010), 756–760.
[9]
Helen M Deeks, Rebecca K Walters, Stephanie R Hare, Michael B O’Connor, Adrian J Mulholland, and David R Glowacki. 2020. Interactive molecular dynamics in virtual reality for accurate flexible protein-ligand docking. Plos one 15, 3 (2020), e0228461.
[10]
Christoph Dellago and Peter G. Bolhuis. 2009. Transition Path Sampling and Other Advanced Simulation Techniques for Rare Events. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 167–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87706-6_3
[11]
Gregory D. Van Duyne, Robert F. Standaert, P. Andrew Karplus, Stuart L. Schreiber, and Jon Clardy. 1991. Atomic Structure of FKBP-FK506, an Immunophilin-Immunosuppressant Complex. Science 252, 5007 (1991), 839–842. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1709302 arXiv:https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1709302
[12]
Ernst-Ludwig Florin, Vincent T Moy, and Hermann E Gaub. 1994. Adhesion forces between individual ligand-receptor pairs. Science 264, 5157 (1994), 415–417.
[13]
Sam Z. Grinter and Xiaoqin Zou. 2014. Challenges, Applications, and Recent Advances of Protein-Ligand Docking in Structure-Based Drug Design. Molecules 19, 7 (2014), 10150–10176. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules190710150
[14]
Xiyuan Hou and Olga Sourina. 2011. Six Degree-of-Freedom Haptic Rendering for Biomolecular Docking. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 98–117.
[15]
Igor Jelaska, Slavko Trninić, and Ante Perica. 2012. Analysis of basketball game states and transition probabilities using the Markov chains. Analysis of Basketball Game States and Transition Probabilities Using the Markov Chains 66 (01 2012), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.5937/fizkul1201015J
[16]
Gordon V Kass. 1980. An exploratory technique for investigating large quantities of categorical data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 29, 2 (1980), 119–127.
[17]
Bernd Kramer, Matthias Rarey, and Thomas Lengauer. 1999. Evaluation of the FLEXX incremental construction algorithm for protein–ligand docking. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 37, 2 (1999), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0134(19991101)37:2<228::AID-PROT8>3.0.CO;2-8
[18]
Frederic Fol Leymarie, William Latham, Guido Salimbeni, Suhail A. Islam, Christopher Reynolds, Charlie Cook, Luis Armas Suarez, Richard Leinfellner, and Michael J. E. Sternberg. 2022. Bioblox 2.5D – Developing an Educational Game Based on Protein Docking. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2204.12425
[19]
Nick Matthews, Akio Kitao, Stephen Laycock, and Steven Hayward. 2019. Haptic-assisted interactive molecular docking incorporating receptor flexibility. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 59, 6 (2019), 2900–2912.
[20]
Demetri Moustakas, P Lang, Scott Pegg, Eric Pettersen, Irwin Kuntz, Natasja Brooijmans, and Robert Rizzo. 2006. Development and validation of a modular, extensible docking program: DOCK 5. Journal of computer-aided molecular design 20 (12 2006), 601–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-006-9060-4
[21]
Minh Khoa Nguyen, Léonard Jaillet, and Stéphane Redon. 2018. ART-RRT: As-Rigid-As-Possible exploration of ligand unbinding pathways. Journal of Computational Chemistry 39, 11 (2018), 665–678. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.25132
[22]
M Frank Norman 1972. Markov processes and learning models. Vol. 84. Academic Press New York.
[23]
Eric F Pettersen, Thomas D Goddard, Conrad C Huang, Gregory S Couch, Daniel M Greenblatt, Elaine C Meng, and Thomas E Ferrin. 2004. UCSF Chimera—a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. Journal of computational chemistry 25, 13 (2004), 1605–1612.
[24]
M Jordan Raddick, Georgia Bracey, Pamela L Gay, Chris J Lintott, Carie Cardamone, Phil Murray, Kevin Schawinski, Alexander S Szalay, and Jan Vandenberg. 2013. Galaxy Zoo: Motivations of citizen scientists. arXiv preprint arXiv:1303.6886 (2013).
[25]
Olivier Sigaud and Olivier Buffet. 2013. Markov decision processes in artificial intelligence. John Wiley & Sons.
[26]
Sam Snodgrass and Santiago Ontañón. 2017. Learning to Generate Video Game Maps Using Markov Models. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 9, 4 (2017), 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCIAIG.2016.2623560
[27]
Jens Jakob WH Sørensen, Mads Kock Pedersen, Michael Munch, Pinja Haikka, Jesper Halkjær Jensen, Tilo Planke, Morten Ginnerup Andreasen, Miroslav Gajdacz, Klaus Mølmer, Andreas Lieberoth, 2016. Exploring the quantum speed limit with computer games. Nature 532, 7598 (2016), 210–213.
[28]
Mark Steyvers, Brent Miller, Pernille Hemmer, and Michael Lee. 2009. The wisdom of crowds in the recollection of order information. Advances in neural information processing systems 22 (2009).
[29]
Manie Tadayon and Gregory J. Pottie. 2020. Predicting Student Performance in an Educational Game Using a Hidden Markov Model. IEEE Transactions on Education 63, 4 (2020), 299–304. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2020.2984900
[30]
Marco Tamassia, William Raffe, Rafet Sifa, Anders Drachen, Fabio Zambetta, and Michael Hitchens. 2016. Predicting player churn in destiny: A Hidden Markov models approach to predicting player departure in a major online game. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG). 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/CIG.2016.7860431
[31]
Adrien Treuille and Rhiju Das. 2014. Scientific rigor through videogames. Trends in biochemical sciences 39, 11 (2014), 507–509.
[32]
Oleg Trott and Arthur J. Olson. 2009. AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. Journal of Computational Chemistry 31 (2009).
[33]
Marcel L. Verdonk, Jason C. Cole, Michael J. Hartshorn, Christopher W. Murray, and Richard D. Taylor. 2003. Improved protein–ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 52, 4 (2003), 609–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.10465
[34]
Junmei Wang, Romain M Wolf, James W Caldwell, Peter A Kollman, and David A Case. 2004. Development and testing of a general amber force field. Journal of computational chemistry 25, 9 (2004), 1157–1174.
[35]
Marcelo Zamith, Jose Ricardo da Silva Junior, Esteban W. G. Clua, and Mark Joselli. 2020. Applying Hidden Markov Model for Dynamic Game Balancing. In 2020 19th Brazilian Symposium on Computer Games and Digital Entertainment (SBGames). 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1109/SBGames51465.2020.00016

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
MIG '23: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Motion, Interaction and Games
November 2023
224 pages
ISBN:9798400703935
DOI:10.1145/3623264
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 the author(s) 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].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 15 November 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Interactive Molecular Docking
  2. Markov models
  3. Serious games

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

  • NSF

Conference

MIG '23
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate -9 of -9 submissions, 100%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 67
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)26
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 28 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media