Binding MOAD (Mother of All Databases) is the largest collection of high-quality, protein-ligand complexes available from the Protein Data Bank. At this time, Binding MOAD contains 5331 protein-ligand complexes comprised of 1780 unique protein families and 2630 unique ligands. We have searched the crystallography papers for all 5000+ structures and compiled binding data for 1375 (26%) of the protein-ligand complexes. The binding-affinity data ranges 13 orders of magnitude. This is the largest collection of binding data reported to date in the literature. We have also addressed the issue of redundancy in the data. To create a nonredundant dataset, one protein from each of the 1780 protein families was chosen as a representative. Representatives were chosen by tightest binding, best resolution, etc. For the 1780 "best" complexes that comprise the nonredundant version of Binding MOAD, 475 (27%) have binding data. This significant collection of protein-ligand complexes will be very useful in elucidating the biophysical patterns of molecular recognition and enzymatic regulation. The complexes with binding-affinity data will help in the development of improved scoring functions and structure-based drug discovery techniques. The dataset can be accessed at http://www.BindingMOAD.org.

A largely unsolved problem in computational biochemistry is the accurate prediction of binding affinities of small ligands to protein receptors. We present a detailed analysis of the systematic and random errors present in computational methods through the use of error probability density functions, specifically for computed interaction energies between chemical fragments comprising a protein-ligand complex. An HIV-II protease crystal structure with a bound ligand (indinavir) was chosen as a model protein-ligand complex. The complex was decomposed into twenty-one (21) interacting fragment pairs, which were studied using a number of computational methods. The chemically accurate complete basis set coupled cluster theory (CCSD(T)/CBS) interaction energies were used as reference values to generate our error estimates. In our analysis we observed significant systematic and random errors in most methods, which was surprising especially for parameterized classical and semiempirical quantum mechanical calculations. After propagating these fragment-based error estimates over the entire protein-ligand complex, our total error estimates for many methods are large compared to the experimentally determined free energy of binding. Thus, we conclude that statistical error analysis is a necessary addition to any scoring function attempting to produce reliable binding affinity predictions.

Binding MOAD (Mother of All Databases) is a database of 9836 protein–ligand crystal structures. All biologically relevant ligands are annotated, and experimental binding-affinity data is reported when available. Binding MOAD has almost doubled in size since it was originally introduced in 2004, demonstrating steady growth with each annual update. Several technologies, such as natural language processing, help drive this constant expansion. Along with increasing data, Binding MOAD has improved usability. The website now showcases a faster, more featured viewer to examine the protein–ligand structures. Ligands have additional chemical data, allowing for cheminformatics mining. Lastly, logins are no longer necessary, and Binding MOAD is freely available to all at http://www.BindingMOAD.org.

No abstract

Understanding how ligand binding influences protein flexibility is important, especially in rational drug design. Protein flexibility upon ligand binding is analyzed herein using 305 proteins with 2369 crystal structures with ligands (holo) and 1679 without (apo). Each protein has at least two apo and two holo structures for analysis. The inherent variation in structures with and without ligands is first established as a baseline. This baseline is then compared to the change in conformation in going from the apo to holo states to probe induced flexibility. The inherent backbone flexibility across the apo structures is roughly the same as the variation across holo structures. The induced backbone flexibility across apo-holo pairs is larger than that of the apo or holo states, but the increase in RMSD is less than 0.5 Å. Analysis of χ1 angles revealed a distinctly different pattern with significant influences seen for ligand binding on side-chain conformations in the binding site. Within the apo and holo states themselves, the variation of the χ1 angles is the same. However, the data combining both apo and holo states show significant displacements. Upon ligand binding, χ1 angles are frequently pushed to new orientations outside the range seen in the apo states. Influences on binding-site variation could not be easily attributed to features such as ligand size or x-ray structure resolution. By combining these findings, we find that most binding site flexibility is compatible with the common practice in flexible docking, where backbones are kept rigid and side chains are allowed some degree of flexibility.

The routine prediction of three-dimensional protein structure from sequence remains a challenge in computational biochemistry. It has been intuited that calculated energies from physics-based scoring functions are able to distinguish native from nonnative folds based on previous performance with small proteins and that conformational sampling is the fundamental bottleneck to successful folding. We demonstrate that as protein size increases, errors in the computed energies become a significant problem. We show, by using error probability density functions, that physics-based scores contain significant systematic and random errors relative to accurate reference energies. These errors propagate throughout an entire protein and distort its energy landscape to such an extent that modern scoring functions should have little chance of success in finding the free energy minima of large proteins. Nonetheless, by understanding errors in physics-based score functions, they can be reduced in a post-hoc manner, improving accuracy in energy computation and fold discrimination.

Physical differences in small molecule binding between enzymes and non-enzymes were found through mining the protein-ligand database, Binding MOAD (Mother of All Databases). The data suggest that divergent approaches may be more productive for improving the affinity of ligands for the two classes of proteins. High-affinity ligands of enzymes are much larger than those with low affinity, indicating that the addition of complementary functional groups is likely to improve the affinity of an enzyme inhibitor. However, this process may not be as fruitful for ligands of nonenzymes. High-and low-affinity ligands of non-enzymes are nearly the same size, so modest modifications and isosteric replacement might be most productive. The inherent differences between enzymes and non-enzymes have significant ramifications for scoring functions and structure-based drug design. In particular, non-enzymes were found to have greater ligand efficiencies than enzymes. Ligand efficiencies are often used to indicate druggability of a target, and this finding supports the feasibility of non-enzymes as drug targets. The differences in ligand efficiencies do not appear to come from the ligands; instead, the pockets yield different amino acid compositions, despite very similar distributions of amino acids in the overall protein sequences.

Two families of binding affinity estimation methodologies are described which were utilized in the SAMPL3 trypsin/fragment binding affinity challenge. The first is a free energy decomposition scheme based on a thermodynamic cycle, which included separate contributions from enthalpy and entropy of binding as well as a solvent contribution. Enthalpic contributions were estimated with PM6-DH2 semiempirical quantum mechanical interaction energies, which were modified with a statistical error correction procedure. Entropic contributions were estimated with the rigid-rotor harmonic approximation, and solvent contributions to the free energy were estimated with several different methods. The second general methodology is the empirical score LISA, which contains several physics-based terms trained with the large PDBBind database of protein/ligand complexes. Here we also introduce LISA+, an updated version of LISA which, prior to scoring, classifies systems into one of four classes based on a ligand's hydrophobicity and molecular weight. Each version of the two methodologies (a total of 11 methods) was trained against a compiled set of known trypsin binders available in the Protein Data Bank to yield scaling parameters for linear regression models. Both raw and scaled scores were submitted to SAMPL3. Variants of LISA showed relatively low absolute errors but also low correlation with experiment, while the free energy decomposition methods had modest success when scaling factors were included. Nonetheless, re-scaled LISA yielded the best predictions in the challenge in terms of RMS error, and six of these models placed in the top ten best predictions by RMS error. This work highlights some of the difficulties of predicting binding affinities of small molecular fragments to protein receptors as well as the benefit of using training data.