Correcting the impact of docking pose generation error on binding affinity prediction

被引:45
作者
Li, Hongjian [1 ]
Leung, Kwong-Sak [1 ]
Wong, Man-Hon [1 ]
Ballester, Pedro J. [2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Dept Comp Sci & Engn, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] INSERM, U1068, Canc Res Ctr Marseille, F-13009 Marseille, France
[3] Inst Paoli Calmettes, F-13009 Marseille, France
[4] Aix Marseille Univ, F-13284 Marseille, France
[5] CNRS, UMR7258, F-13009 Marseille, France
关键词
Molecular docking; Binding affinity; Drug discovery; Machine learning; RANDOM FOREST; SCORING FUNCTIONS; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.1186/s12859-016-1169-4
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
Background: Pose generation error is usually quantified as the difference between the geometry of the pose generated by the docking software and that of the same molecule co-crystallised with the considered protein. Surprisingly, the impact of this error on binding affinity prediction is yet to be systematically analysed across diverse protein-ligand complexes. Results: Against commonly-held views, we have found that pose generation error has generally a small impact on the accuracy of binding affinity prediction. This is also true for large pose generation errors and it is not only observed with machine-learning scoring functions, but also with classical scoring functions such as AutoDock Vina. Furthermore, we propose a procedure to correct a substantial part of this error which consists of calibrating the scoring functions with re-docked, rather than co-crystallised, poses. In this way, the relationship between Vina-generated protein-ligand poses and their binding affinities is directly learned. As a result, test set performance after this error-correcting procedure is much closer to that of predicting the binding affinity in the absence of pose generation error (i.e. on crystal structures). We evaluated several strategies, obtaining better results for those using a single docked pose per ligand than those using multiple docked poses per ligand. Conclusions: Binding affinity prediction is often carried out on the docked pose of a known binder rather than its co-crystallised pose. Our results suggest than pose generation error is in general far less damaging for binding affinity prediction than it is currently believed. Another contribution of our study is the proposal of a procedure that largely corrects for this error. The resulting machine-learning scoring function is freely available at http://istar.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/ rf-score-4.tgz and http://ballester.marseille.inserm.fr/rf-score-4.tgz.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]   Machine-learning scoring functions to improve structure-based binding affinity prediction and virtual screening [J].
Ain, Qurrat Ul ;
Aleksandrova, Antoniya ;
Roessler, Florian D. ;
Ballester, Pedro J. .
WILEY INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS-COMPUTATIONAL MOLECULAR SCIENCE, 2015, 5 (06) :405-424
[2]  
Ballester PJ, 2012, LECT NOTES COMPUT SC, V7632, P14, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-34123-6_2
[3]   Does a More Precise Chemical Description of Protein-Ligand Complexes Lead to More Accurate Prediction of Binding Affinity? [J].
Ballester, Pedro J. ;
Schreyer, Adrian ;
Blundell, Tom L. .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2014, 54 (03) :944-955
[4]   Hierarchical virtual screening for the discovery of new molecular scaffolds in antibacterial hit identification [J].
Ballester, Pedro J. ;
Mangold, Martina ;
Howard, Nigel I. ;
Robinson, Richard L. Marchese ;
Abell, Chris ;
Blumberger, Jochen ;
Mitchell, John B. O. .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE, 2012, 9 (77) :3196-3207
[5]   A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking [J].
Ballester, Pedro J. ;
Mitchell, John B. O. .
BIOINFORMATICS, 2010, 26 (09) :1169-1175
[6]   SmcHD1, containing a structural-maintenance-of-chromosomes hinge domain, has a critical role in X inactivation [J].
Blewitt, Marnie E. ;
Gendrel, Anne-Valerie ;
Pang, Zhenyi ;
Sparrow, Duncan B. ;
Whitelaw, Nadia ;
Craig, Jeffrey M. ;
Apedaile, Anwyn ;
Hilton, Douglas J. ;
Dunwoodie, Sally L. ;
Brockdorff, Neil ;
Kay, Graham F. ;
Whitelaw, Emma .
NATURE GENETICS, 2008, 40 (05) :663-669
[7]   Random forests [J].
Breiman, L .
MACHINE LEARNING, 2001, 45 (01) :5-32
[8]   Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on a Diverse Test Set [J].
Cheng, Tiejun ;
Li, Xun ;
Li, Yan ;
Liu, Zhihai ;
Wang, Renxiao .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2009, 49 (04) :1079-1093
[9]   Low-Quality Structural and Interaction Data Improves Binding Affinity Prediction via Random Forest [J].
Li, Hongjian ;
Leung, Kwong-Sak ;
Wong, Man-Hon ;
Ballester, Pedro J. .
MOLECULES, 2015, 20 (06) :10947-10962
[10]   Improving AutoDock Vina Using Random Forest: The Growing Accuracy of Binding Affinity Prediction by the Effective Exploitation of Larger Data Sets [J].
Li, Hongjian ;
Leung, Kwong-Sak ;
Wong, Man-Hon ;
Ballester, Pedro J. .
MOLECULAR INFORMATICS, 2015, 34 (2-3) :115-126