Multiple protein structures and multiple ligands: effects on the apparent goodness of virtual screening results

被引:51
作者
Sheridan, Robert P. [1 ]
McGaughey, Georgia B. [2 ]
Cornell, Wendy D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Merck Res Labs, Mol Syst Dept, Rahway, NJ 07065 USA
[2] Merck Res Labs, Mol Syst Dept, West Point, PA 19486 USA
关键词
2D similarity; 3D similarity; docking; BEDROC; ROC; glide; ROCS; SQ; SQW; TOPOSIM;
D O I
10.1007/s10822-008-9168-9
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学]; Q7 [分子生物学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
As an extension to a previous published study (McGaughey et al., J Chem Inf Model 47:1504-1519, 2007) comparing 2D and 3D similarity methods to docking, we apply a subset of those virtual screening methods (TOPOSIM, SQW, ROCS-color, and Glide) to a set of protein/ligand pairs where the protein is the target for docking and the cocrystallized ligand is the target for the similarity methods. Each protein is represented by a maximum of five crystal structures. We search a diverse subset of the MDDR as well as a diverse small subset of the MCIDB, Merck's proprietary database. It is seen that the relative effectiveness of virtual screening methods, as measured by the enrichment factor, is highly dependent on the particular crystal structure or ligand, and on the database being searched. 2D similarity methods appear very good for the MDDR, but poor for the MCIDB. However, ROCS-color (a 3D similarity method) does well for both databases.
引用
收藏
页码:257 / 265
页数:9
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   A multivariate approach to investigate docking parameters' effects on docking performance [J].
Andersson, C. David ;
Thysell, Elin ;
Lindstrom, Anton ;
Bylesjo, Max ;
Raubacher, Florian ;
Linusson, Anna .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2007, 47 (04) :1673-1687
[2]   ATOM PAIRS AS MOLECULAR-FEATURES IN STRUCTURE ACTIVITY STUDIES - DEFINITION AND APPLICATIONS [J].
CARHART, RE ;
SMITH, DH ;
VENKATARAGHAVAN, R .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES, 1985, 25 (02) :64-73
[3]   Effectiveness of retrieval in similarity searches of chemical databases: A review of performance measures [J].
Edgar, SJ ;
Holliday, JD ;
Willett, P .
JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR GRAPHICS & MODELLING, 2000, 18 (4-5) :343-357
[4]   Lessons in molecular recognition: The effects of ligand and protein flexibility on molecular docking accuracy [J].
Erickson, JA ;
Jalaie, M ;
Robertson, DH ;
Lewis, RA ;
Vieth, M .
JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 2004, 47 (01) :45-55
[5]   Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy [J].
Friesner, RA ;
Banks, JL ;
Murphy, RB ;
Halgren, TA ;
Klicic, JJ ;
Mainz, DT ;
Repasky, MP ;
Knoll, EH ;
Shelley, M ;
Perry, JK ;
Shaw, DE ;
Francis, P ;
Shenkin, PS .
JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 2004, 47 (07) :1739-1749
[6]   Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening [J].
Halgren, TA ;
Murphy, RB ;
Friesner, RA ;
Beard, HS ;
Frye, LL ;
Pollard, WT ;
Banks, JL .
JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 2004, 47 (07) :1750-1759
[7]  
HAWKINS PCD, 2006, 231 ACS NAT M ATL GA
[8]   Screening drug-like compounds by docking to homology models: A systematic study [J].
Kairys, V ;
Fernandes, MX ;
Gilson, MK .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2006, 46 (01) :365-379
[9]   Chemical similarity using physiochemical property descriptors [J].
Kearsley, SK ;
Sallamack, S ;
Fluder, EM ;
Andose, JD ;
Mosley, RT ;
Sheridan, RP .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES, 1996, 36 (01) :118-127
[10]   Gaussian docking functions [J].
McGann, MR ;
Almond, HR ;
Nicholls, A ;
Grant, JA ;
Brown, FK .
BIOPOLYMERS, 2003, 68 (01) :76-90