Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power

被引:705
作者
Wang, Zhe [1 ]
Sun, Huiyong [1 ]
Yao, Xiaojun [2 ]
Li, Dan [1 ]
Xu, Lei [3 ]
Li, Youyong [4 ]
Tian, Sheng [4 ]
Hou, Tingjun [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Zhejiang Univ, Coll Pharmaceut Sci, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
[2] Macau Univ Sci & Technol, Macau Inst Appl Res Med & Hlth, State Key Lab Qual Res Chinese Med, Ave Wai Long, Taipa, Macau Sar, Peoples R China
[3] Jiangsu Univ Technol, Sch Elect & Informat Engn, Inst Bioinformat & Med Engn, Changzhou 213001, Peoples R China
[4] Soochow Univ, Inst Funct Nano & Soft Mat FUNSOM, Suzhou 215123, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[5] Zhejiang Univ, CAD&CG, State Key Lab, Hangzhou 310058, Zhejiang, Peoples R China
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
VIRTUAL SCREENING STRATEGY; MOLECULAR DOCKING; DRUG DISCOVERY; STRUCTURAL CLASSIFICATION; BINDING-AFFINITY; PDBBIND DATABASE; POSE PREDICTION; LEAD GENERATION; FORCE-FIELD; LIBRARIES;
D O I
10.1039/c6cp01555g
中图分类号
O64 [物理化学(理论化学)、化学物理学];
学科分类号
070304 ; 081704 ;
摘要
As one of the most popular computational approaches in modern structure-based drug design, molecular docking can be used not only to identify the correct conformation of a ligand within the target binding pocket but also to estimate the strength of the interaction between a target and a ligand. Nowadays, as a variety of docking programs are available for the scientific community, a comprehensive understanding of the advantages and limitations of each docking program is fundamentally important to conduct more reasonable docking studies and docking-based virtual screening. In the present study, based on an extensive dataset of 2002 protein-ligand complexes from the PDBbind database (version 2014), the performance of ten docking programs, including five commercial programs (LigandFit, Glide, GOLD, MOE Dock, and Surflex-Dock) and five academic programs (AutoDock, AutoDock Vina, LeDock, rDock, and UCSF DOCK), was systematically evaluated by examining the accuracies of binding pose prediction (sampling power) and binding affinity estimation (scoring power). Our results showed that GOLD and LeDock had the best sampling power (GOLD: 59.8% accuracy for the top scored poses; LeDock: 80.8% accuracy for the best poses) and AutoDock Vina had the best scoring power (r(p)/r(s) of 0.564/0.580 and 0.569/0.584 for the top scored poses and best poses), suggesting that the commercial programs did not show the expected better performance than the academic ones. Overall, the ligand binding poses could be identified in most cases by the evaluated docking programs but the ranks of the binding affinities for the entire dataset could not be well predicted by most docking programs. However, for some types of protein families, relatively high linear correlations between docking scores and experimental binding affinities could be achieved. To our knowledge, this study has been the most extensive evaluation of popular molecular docking programs in the last five years. It is expected that our work can offer useful information for the successful application of these docking tools to different requirements and targets.
引用
收藏
页码:12964 / 12975
页数:12
相关论文
共 59 条
[1]   DOCK 6: Impact of New Features and Current Docking Performance [J].
Allen, William J. ;
Balius, Trent E. ;
Mukherjee, Sudipto ;
Brozell, Scott R. ;
Moustakas, Demetri T. ;
Lang, P. Therese ;
Case, David A. ;
Kuntz, Irwin D. ;
Rizzo, Robert C. .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY, 2015, 36 (15) :1132-1156
[2]  
Azevedo LS, 2012, CURR BIOINFORM, V7, P352
[3]   Automated docking for novel drug discovery [J].
Bello, Martiniano ;
Martinez-Archundia, Marlet ;
Correa-Basurto, Jose .
EXPERT OPINION ON DRUG DISCOVERY, 2013, 8 (07) :821-834
[4]   Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations [J].
Bissantz, C ;
Folkers, G ;
Rognan, D .
JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 2000, 43 (25) :4759-4767
[5]   Beware of docking! [J].
Chen, Yu-Chian .
TRENDS IN PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2015, 36 (02) :78-95
[6]   Variability in docking success rates due to dataset preparation [J].
Corbeil, Christopher R. ;
Williams, Christopher I. ;
Labute, Paul .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-AIDED MOLECULAR DESIGN, 2012, 26 (06) :775-786
[7]   Comparison of Several Molecular Docking Programs: Pose Prediction and Virtual Screening Accuracy [J].
Cross, Jason B. ;
Thompson, David C. ;
Rai, Brajesh K. ;
Baber, J. Christian ;
Fan, Kristi Yi ;
Hu, Yongbo ;
Humblet, Christine .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2009, 49 (06) :1455-1474
[8]   CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2011-2012: Evaluation of Results from Docking and Relative Ranking of Blinded Congeneric Series [J].
Damm-Ganamet, Kelly L. ;
Smith, Richard D. ;
Dunbar, James B., Jr. ;
Stuckey, Jeanne A. ;
Carlson, Heather A. .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2013, 53 (08) :1853-1870
[9]   Components of successful lead generation [J].
Davis, AM ;
Keeling, DJ ;
Steele, J ;
Tomkinson, NP ;
Tinker, AC .
CURRENT TOPICS IN MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 2005, 5 (04) :421-439
[10]   A collaborative database and computational models for tuberculosis drug discovery [J].
Ekins, Sean ;
Bradford, Justin ;
Dole, Krishna ;
Spektor, Anna ;
Gregory, Kellan ;
Blondeau, David ;
Hohman, Moses ;
Bunin, Barry A. .
MOLECULAR BIOSYSTEMS, 2010, 6 (05) :840-851