The Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) ran Grand Challenge 2015 between September 2015 and February 2016. Two targets served as the framework to test community docking and scoring methods: (i) HSP90, donated by AbbVie and the Community Structure Activity Resource (CSAR), and (ii) MAP4K4, donated by Genentech. The challenges for both target datasets were conducted in two stages, with the first stage testing pose predictions and the capacity to rank compounds by affinity with minimal structural data; and the second stage testing methods for ranking compounds with knowledge of at least a subset of the ligand-protein poses. An additional sub-challenge provided small groups of chemically similar HSP90 compounds amenable to alchemical calculations of relative binding free energy. Unlike previous blinded Challenges, we did not provide cognate receptors or receptors prepared with hydrogens and likewise did not require a specified crystal structure to be used for pose or affinity prediction in Stage 1. Given the freedom to select from over 200 crystal structures of HSP90 in the PDB, participants employed workflows that tested not only core docking and scoring technologies, but also methods for addressing water-mediated ligand-protein interactions, binding pocket flexibility, and the optimal selection of protein structures for use in docking calculations. Nearly 40 participating groups submitted over 350 prediction sets for Grand Challenge 2015. This overview describes the datasets and the organization of the challenge components, summarizes the results across all submitted predictions, and considers broad conclusions that may be drawn from this collaborative community endeavor.

A major goal in drug design is the improvement of computational methods for docking and scoring. The Community Structure Activity Resource (CSAR) has collected several data sets from industry and added in-house data sets that may be used for this purpose (). CSAR has currently obtained data from Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, and Vertex and is working on obtaining data from several others. Combined with our in-house projects, we are providing a data set consisting of 6 protein targets, 647 compounds with biological affinities, and 82 crystal structures. Multiple congeneric series are available for several targets with a few representative crystal structures of each of the series. These series generally contain a few inactive compounds, usually not available in the literature, to provide an upper bound to the affinity range. The affinity ranges are typically 3–4 orders of magnitude per series. For our in-house projects, we have had compounds synthesized for biological testing. Affinities were measured by Thermofluor, Octet RED, and isothermal titration calorimetry for the most soluble. This allows the direct comparison of the biological affinities for those compounds, providing a measure of the variance in the experimental affinity. It appears that there can be considerable variance in the absolute value of the affinity, making the prediction of the absolute value ill-defined. However, the relative rankings within the methods are much better, and this fits with the observation that predicting relative ranking is a more tractable problem computationally. For those in-house compounds, we also have measured the following physical properties: logD, logP, thermodynamic solubility, and pKa. This data set also provides a substantial decoy set for each target consisting of diverse conformations covering the entire active site for all of the 58 CSAR-quality crystal structures. The CSAR data sets (CSAR-NRC HiQ and the 2012 release) provide substantial, publically available, curated data sets for use in parametrizing and validating docking and scoring methods.

Community Structure-Activity Resource (CSAR) conducted a benchmark exercise to evaluate the current computational methods for protein design, ligand docking, and scoring/ranking. The exercise consisted of three phases. The first phase required the participants to identify and rank order which designed sequences were able to bind the small molecule digoxigenin. The second phase challenged the community to select a near-native pose of digoxigenin from a set of decoy poses for two of the designed proteins. The third phase investigated the ability of current methods to rank/score the binding affinity of 10 related steroids to one of the designed proteins (pKd = 4.1 to 6.7). We found that 11 of 13 groups were able to correctly select the sequence that bound digoxigenin, with most groups providing the correct three-dimensional structure for the backbone of the protein as well as all atoms of the active-site residues. Eleven of the 14 groups were able to select the appropriate pose from a set of plausible decoy poses. The ability to predict absolute binding affinities is still a difficult task, as 8 of 14 groups were able to correlate scores to affinity (Pearson-r > 0.7) of the designed protein for congeneric steroids and only 5 of 14 groups were able to correlate the ranks of the 10 related ligands (Spearman-ρ > 0.7).