Estimating the pairwise similarity of protein−ligand binding sites is a fast and efficient way of predicting cross-reactivity and putative side effects of drug candidates. Among the many tools available, threedimensional (3D) alignment-dependent methods are usually slow and based on simplified representations of binding site atoms or surfaces. On the other hand, fast and efficient alignment-free methods have recently been described but suffer from a lack of interpretability. We herewith present a novel binding site description (VolSite), coupled to an alignment and comparison tool (Shaper) combining the speed of alignment-free methods with the interpretability of alignment-dependent approaches. It is based on the comparison of negative images of binding cavities encoding both shape and pharmacophoric properties at regularly spaced grid points. Shaper approximates the resulting molecular shape with a smooth Gaussian function and aligns protein binding sites by optimizing their volume overlap. Volsite and Shaper were successfully applied to compare protein− ligand binding sites and to predict their structural druggability.

We herewith present a novel and universal method to convert protein-ligand coordinates into a simple fingerprint of 210 integers registering the corresponding molecular interaction pattern. Each interaction (hydrophobic, aromatic, hydrogen bond, ionic bond, metal complexation) is detected on the fly and physically described by a pseudoatom centered either on the interacting ligand atom, the interacting protein atom, or the geometric center of both interacting atoms. Counting all possible triplets of interaction pseudoatoms within six distance ranges, and pruning the full integer vector to keep the most frequent triplets enables the definition of a simple (210 integers) and coordinate frame-invariant interaction pattern descriptor (TIFP) that can be applied to compare any pair of protein-ligand complexes. TIFP fingerprints have been calculated for ca. 10,000 druggable protein-ligand complexes therefore enabling a wide comparison of relationships between interaction pattern similarity and ligand or binding site pairwise similarity. We notably show that interaction pattern similarity strongly depends on binding site similarity. In addition to the TIFP fingerprint which registers intermolecular interactions between a ligand and its target protein, we developed two tools (Ishape, Grim) to align protein-ligand complexes from their interaction patterns. Ishape is based on the overlap of interaction pseudoatoms using a smooth Gaussian function, whereas Grim utilizes a standard clique detection algorithm to match interaction pattern graphs. Both tools are complementary and enable protein-ligand complex alignments capitalizing on both global and local pattern similarities. The new fingerprint and companion alignment tools have been successfully used in three scenarios: (i) interaction-biased alignment of protein-ligand complexes, (ii) postprocessing docking poses according to known interaction patterns for a particular target, and (iii) virtual screening for bioisosteric scaffolds sharing similar interaction patterns.

The sc-PDB database (available at http://bioinfo-pharma.u-strasbg.fr/scPDB/) is a comprehensive and up-to-date selection of ligandable binding sites of the Protein Data Bank. Sites are defined from complexes between a protein and a pharmacological ligand. The database provides the all-atom description of the protein, its ligand, their binding site and their binding mode. Currently, the sc-PDB archive registers 9283 binding sites from 3678 unique proteins and 5608 unique ligands. The sc-PDB database was publicly launched in 2004 with the aim of providing structure files suitable for computational approaches to drug design, such as docking. During the last 10 years we have improved and standardized the processes for (i) identifying binding sites, (ii) correcting structures, (iii) annotating protein function and ligand properties and (iv) characterizing their binding mode. This paper presents the latest enhancements in the database, specifically pertaining to the representation of molecular interaction and to the similarity between ligand/protein binding patterns. The new website puts emphasis in pictorial analysis of data.

Training machine learning algorithms with protein-ligand descriptors has recently gained considerable attention to predict binding constants from atomic coordinates. Starting from a series of recent reports stating the advantages of this approach over empirical scoring functions, we could indeed reproduce the claimed superiority of Random Forest and Support Vector Machine-based scoring functions to predict experimental binding constants from protein-ligand X-ray structures of the PDBBind dataset. Strikingly, these scoring functions, trained on simple protein-ligand element-element distance counts, were almost unable to enrich virtual screening hit lists in true actives upon docking experiments of 10 reference DUD-E datasets; this is a a feature that, however, has been verified for an a priori less-accurate empirical scoring function (Surflex-Dock). By systematically varying ligand poses from true X-ray coordinates, we show that the Surflex-Dock scoring function is logically sensitive to the quality of docking poses. Conversely, our machine-learning based scoring functions are totally insensitive to docking poses (up to 10 Å root-mean square deviations) and just describe atomic element counts. This report does not disqualify using machine learning algorithms to design scoring functions. Protein-ligand element-element distance counts should however be used with extreme caution and only applied in a meaningful way. To avoid developing novel but meaningless scoring functions, we propose that two additional benchmarking tests must be systematically done when developing novel scoring functions: (i) sensitivity to docking pose accuracy, and (ii) ability to enrich hit lists in true actives upon structure-based (docking, receptor-ligand pharmacophore) virtual screening of reference datasets.

Structure‐based ligand design requires an exact description of the topology of molecular entities under scrutiny. IChem is a software package that reflects the many contributions of our research group in this area over the last decade. It facilitates and automates many tasks (e.g., ligand/cofactor atom typing, identification of key water molecules) usually left to the modeler's choice. It therefore permits the detection of molecular interactions between two molecules in a very precise and flexible manner. Moreover, IChem enables the conversion of intricate three‐dimensional (3D) molecular objects into simple representations (fingerprints, graphs) that facilitate knowledge acquisition at very high throughput. The toolkit is an ideal companion for setting up and performing many structure‐based design computations.

Selectivity is a key factor in drug development. In this paper, we questioned the Protein Data Bank to better understand the reasons for the promiscuity of bioactive compounds. We assembled a data set of >1000 pairs of three-dimensional structures of complexes between a "drug-like" ligand (as its physicochemical properties overlap that of approved drugs) and two distinct "druggable" protein targets (as their binding sites are likely to accommodate "drug-like" ligands). Studying the similarity between the ligand-binding sites in the different targets revealed that the lack of selectivity of a ligand can be due (i) to the fact that Nature has created the same binding pocket in different proteins, which do not necessarily have otherwise sequence or fold similarity, or (ii) to specific characteristics of the ligand itself. In particular, we demonstrated that many ligands can adapt to different protein environments by changing their conformation, by using different chemical moieties to anchor to different targets, or by adopting unusual extreme binding modes (e.g., only apolar contact between the ligand and the protein, even though polar groups are present on the ligand or at the protein surface). Lastly, we provided new elements in support to the recent studies which suggest that the promiscuity of a ligand might be inferred from its molecular complexity.

Aiming at a deep understanding of fragment binding to ligandable targets, we performed a large scale analysis of the Protein Data Bank. Binding modes of 1832 drug-like ligands and 1079 fragments to 235 proteins were compared. We observed that the binding modes of fragments and their drug-like superstructures binding to the same protein are mostly conserved, thereby providing experimental evidence for the preservation of fragment binding modes during molecular growing. Furthermore, small chemical changes in the fragment are tolerated without alteration of the fragment binding mode. The exceptions to this observation generally involve conformational variability of the molecules. Our data analysis also suggests that, provided enough fragments have been crystallized within a protein, good interaction coverage of the binding pocket is achieved. Last, we extended our study to 126 crystallization additives and discuss in which cases they provide information relevant to structure-based drug design.

No abstract