How good are AlphaFold models for docking-based virtual screening?

被引:79
作者
Scardino, Valeria [1 ,2 ]
Di Filippo, Juan I. [2 ,3 ]
Cavasotto, Claudio N. [2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Meton AI Inc, Wilmington, DE 19801 USA
[2] Univ Austral, Austral Inst Appl Artificial Intelligence, Pilar, Buenos Aires, Argentina
[3] Univ Austral, Computat Drug Design & Biomed Informat Lab, Inst Invest Med Traslac IIMT, CONICET, Pilar, Buenos Aires, Argentina
[4] Univ Austral, Fac Ciencias Biomed, Fac Ingn, Pilar, Buenos Aires, Argentina
关键词
PROTEIN-LIGAND DOCKING; STRUCTURE PREDICTION; FLEXIBILITY; DISCOVERY; ACCURACY; SETS;
D O I
10.1016/j.isci.2022.105920
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
A crucial component in structure-based drug discovery is the availability of high -quality three-dimensional structures of the protein target. Whenever experi-mental structures were not available, homology modeling has been, so far, the method of choice. Recently, AlphaFold (AF), an artificial-intelligence-based pro-tein structure prediction method, has shown impressive results in terms of model accuracy. This outstanding success prompted us to evaluate how accurate AF models are from the perspective of docking-based drug discovery. We compared the high-throughput docking (HTD) performance of AF models with their corre-sponding experimental PDB structures using a benchmark set of 22 targets. The AF models showed consistently worse performance using four docking pro-grams and two consensus techniques. Although AlphaFold shows a remarkable ability to predict protein architecture, this might not be enough to guarantee that AF models can be reliably used for HTD, and post-modeling refinement stra-tegies might be key to increase the chances of success.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 70 条
[21]   Protein structure modeling in the proteomics era [J].
Fiser, A .
EXPERT REVIEW OF PROTEOMICS, 2004, 1 (01) :97-110
[22]   The accuracy of protein structures in solution determined by AlphaFold and NMR [J].
Fowler, Nicholas J. ;
Williamson, Mike P. .
STRUCTURE, 2022, 30 (07) :925-+
[23]   Extra precision glide: Docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes [J].
Friesner, Richard A. ;
Murphy, Robert B. ;
Repasky, Matthew P. ;
Frye, Leah L. ;
Greenwood, Jeremy R. ;
Halgren, Thomas A. ;
Sanschagrin, Paul C. ;
Mainz, Daniel T. .
JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 2006, 49 (21) :6177-6196
[24]   Ligand and Decoy Sets for Docking to G Protein-Coupled Receptors [J].
Gatica, Edgar A. ;
Cavasotto, Claudio N. .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2012, 52 (01) :1-6
[25]  
Gupta M, 2021, bioRxiv, DOI [10.1101/2021.05.10.443524, 10.1101/2021.05.10.443524, DOI 10.1101/2021.05.10.443524]
[26]   Ligand-Binding-Site Refinement to Generate Reliable Holo Protein Structure Conformations from Apo Structures [J].
Guterres, Hugo ;
Park, Sang-Jun ;
Jiang, Wei ;
Im, Wonpil .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2021, 61 (01) :535-546
[27]   Multi-state modeling of G-protein coupled receptors at experimental accuracy [J].
Heo, Lim ;
Feig, Michael .
PROTEINS-STRUCTURE FUNCTION AND BIOINFORMATICS, 2022, :1873-1885
[28]   Benchmarking sets for molecular docking [J].
Huang, Niu ;
Shoichet, Brian K. ;
Irwin, John J. .
JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 2006, 49 (23) :6789-6801
[29]  
Jendrusch M., 2021, bioRxiv, p2021.10.11.463937
[30]   The impact of AlphaFold2 one year on [J].
Jones, David T. ;
Thornton, Janet M. .
NATURE METHODS, 2022, 19 (01) :15-20