One approach to incorporate protein flexibility in molecular docking is the use of an ensemble consisting of multiple protein structures. Sequentially docking each ligand into a large number of protein structures is computationally too expensive to allow large-scale database screening. It is challenging to achieve a good balance between docking accuracy and computational efficiency. In this work, we have developed a fast, novel docking algorithm utilizing multiple protein structures, referred to as ensemble docking, to account for protein structural variations. The algorithm can simultaneously dock a ligand into an ensemble of protein structures and automatically select an optimal protein structure that best fits the ligand by optimizing both ligand coordinates and the conformational variable m, where m represents the m-th structure in the protein ensemble. The docking algorithm was validated on 10 protein ensembles containing 105 crystal structures and 87 ligands in terms of binding mode and energy score predictions. A success rate of 93% was obtained with the criterion of root-mean-square deviation <2.5 A if the top five orientations for each ligand were considered, comparable to that of sequential docking in which scores for individual docking are merged into one list by re-ranking, and significantly better than that of single rigid-receptor docking (75% on average). Similar trends were also observed in binding score predictions and enrichment tests of virtual database screening. The ensemble docking algorithm is computationally efficient, with a computational time comparable to that for docking a ligand into a single protein structure. In contrast, the computational time for the sequential docking method increases linearly with the number of protein structures in the ensemble. The algorithm was further evaluated using a more realistic ensemble in which the corresponding bound protein structures of inhibitors were excluded. The results show that ensemble docking successfully predicts the binding modes of the inhibitors, and discriminates the inhibitors from a set of noninhibitors with similar chemical properties. Although multiple experimental structures were used in the present work, our algorithm can be easily applied to multiple protein conformations generated by computational methods, and helps improve the efficiency of other existing multiple protein structure(MPS)-based methods to accommodate protein flexibility.

The scoring function is one of the most important components in structure-based drug design. Despite considerable success, accurate and rapid prediction of protein-ligand interactions is still a challenge in molecular docking. In this perspective, we have reviewed three basic types of scoring functions (force-field, empirical, and knowledge-based) and the consensus scoring technique that are used for protein-ligand docking. The commonly-used assessment criteria and publicly available protein-ligand databases for performance evaluation of the scoring functions have also been presented and discussed. We end with a discussion of the challenges faced by existing scoring functions and possible future directions for developing improved scoring functions.

Using an efficient iterative method, we have developed a distance-dependent knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-protein interactions. The function, referred to as ITScore-PP, was derived using the crystal structures of a training set of 851 protein-protein dimeric complexes containing true biological interfaces. The key idea of the iterative method for deriving ITScore-PP is to improve the interatomic pair potentials by iteration, until the pair potentials can distinguish true binding modes from decoy modes for the protein-protein complexes in the training set. The iterative method circumvents the challenging reference state problem in deriving knowledge-based potentials. The derived scoring function was used to evaluate the ligand orientations generated by ZDOCK 2.1 and the native ligand structures on a diverse set of 91 protein-protein complexes. For the bound test cases, ITScore-PP yielded a success rate of 98.9% if the top 10 ranked orientations were considered. For the more realistic unbound test cases, the corresponding success rate was 40.7%. Furthermore, for faster orientational sampling purpose, several residue-level knowledge-based scoring functions were also derived following the similar iterative procedure. Among them, the scoring function that uses the side-chain center of mass (SCM) to represent a residue, referred to as ITScore-PP(SCM), showed the best performance and yielded success rates of 71.4% and 30.8% for the bound and unbound cases, respectively, when the top 10 orientations were considered. ITScore-PP was further tested using two other published protein-protein docking decoy sets, the ZDOCK decoy set and the RosettaDock decoy set. In addition to binding mode prediction, the binding scores predicted by ITScore-PP also correlated well with the experimentally determined binding affinities, yielding a correlation coefficient of R = 0.71 on a test set of 74 protein-protein complexes with known affinities. ITScore-PP is computationally efficient. The average run time for ITScore-PP was about 0.03 second per orientation (including optimization) on a personal computer with 3.2 GHz Pentium IV CPU and 3.0 GB RAM. The computational speed of ITScore-PP(SCM) is about an order of magnitude faster than that of ITScore-PP. ITScore-PP and/or ITScore-PP(SCM) can be combined with efficient protein docking software to study protein-protein recognition.

Molecular docking is a widely-used computational tool for the study of molecular recognition, which aims to predict the binding mode and binding affinity of a complex formed by two or more constituent molecules with known structures. An important type of molecular docking is protein-ligand docking because of its therapeutic applications in modern structure-based drug design. Here, we review the recent advances of protein flexibility, ligand sampling, and scoring functions—the three important aspects in protein-ligand docking. Challenges and possible future directions are discussed in the Conclusion.

Using a novel iterative method, we have developed a knowledge-based scoring function (ITScore) to predict protein-ligand interactions. The pair potentials for ITScore were derived from a training set of 786 protein-ligand complex structures in the Protein Data Bank. Twenty-six atom types were used based on the atom type category of the SYBYL software. The iterative method circumvents the long-standing reference state problem in the derivation of knowledge-based scoring functions. The basic idea is to improve pair potentials by iteration until they correctly discriminate experimentally determined binding modes from decoy ligand poses for the ligand-protein complexes in the training set. The iterative method is efficient and normally converges within 20 iterative steps. The scoring function based on the derived potentials was tested on a diverse set of 140 protein-ligand complexes for affinity prediction, yielding a high correlation coefficient of 0.74. Because ITScore uses SYBYL-defined atom types, this scoring function is easy to use for molecular files prepared by SYBYL or converted by software such as BABEL.

Accounting for the effect of solvent on the strength of molecular interactions has been a long-standing problem for molecular calculations in general and for structure-based drug design in particular. Here, we explore the generalized-Born (GB/SA) model of solvation (Still, W. C.; Tempczyk, A.; Hawley, R. C.; Hendrickson, T. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1990, 112, 6127−9) to calculate ligand−receptor binding energies. The GB/SA approach allows for the estimation of electrostatic, van der Waals, and hydrophobic contributions to the free energy of binding. The GB/SA formulation provides a good balance between computational speed and accuracy in these calculations. We have derived a formula to estimate the binding free energy. We have also developed a procedure to penalize any unoccupied embedded space that might form between the ligand and the receptor during the docking process. To improve the computational speed, the protein contribution to the electrostatic screening is precalculated and stored on a grid. Refinement of the ligand position is required to optimize the nonbonded interactions between ligand and receptor. Our version of the GB/SA algorithm takes approximately 10 s per orientation (with minimization) on a Silicon Graphics R10000 workstation. In two test systems, dihydrofolate reductase (dhfr) and trypsin, we obtain much better results than the current DOCK (Ewing, T. J. A.; Kuntz, I. D. J. Comput. Chem. 1997, 18, 1175−89) force field scoring method (Meng, E. C.; Shoichet, B. K.; Kuntz, I. D. J. Comput. Chem. 1992, 13, 505−24). We also suggest a methodology to identify an appropriate parameter regime to balance the specificity and the generality of the equations.

We have developed an iterative knowledge-based scoring function (ITScore) to describe protein-ligand interactions. Here, we assess ITScore through extensive tests on native structure identification, binding affinity prediction, and virtual database screening. Specifically, ITScore was first applied to a test set of 100 protein-ligand complexes constructed by Wang et al. (J Med Chem 2003, 46, 2287), and compared with 14 other scoring functions. The results show that ITScore yielded a high success rate of 82% on identifying native-like binding modes under the criterion of rmsd < or = 2 A for each top-ranked ligand conformation. The success rate increased to 98% if the top five conformations were considered for each ligand. In the case of binding affinity prediction, ITScore also obtained a good correlation for this test set (R = 0.65). Next, ITScore was used to predict binding affinities of a second diverse test set of 77 protein-ligand complexes prepared by Muegge and Martin (J Med Chem 1999, 42, 791), and compared with four other widely used knowledge-based scoring functions. ITScore yielded a high correlation of R2 = 0.65 (or R = 0.81) in the affinity prediction. Finally, enrichment tests were performed with ITScore against four target proteins using the compound databases constructed by Jacobsson et al. (J Med Chem 2003, 46, 5781). The results were compared with those of eight other scoring functions. ITScore yielded high enrichments in all four database screening tests. ITScore can be easily combined with the existing docking programs for the use of structure-based drug design.

We present the results for CAPRI Round 30, the first joint CASP-CAPRI experiment, which brought together experts from the protein structure prediction and protein-protein docking communities. The Round comprised 25 targets from amongst those submitted for the CASP11 prediction experiment of 2014. The targets included mostly homodimers, a few homotetramers, and two heterodimers, and comprised protein chains that could readily be modeled using templates from the Protein Data Bank. On average 24 CAPRI groups and 7 CASP groups submitted docking predictions for each target, and 12 CAPRI groups per target participated in the CAPRI scoring experiment. In total more than 9500 models were assessed against the 3D structures of the corresponding target complexes. Results show that the prediction of homodimer assemblies by homology modeling techniques and docking calculations is quite successful for targets featuring large enough subunit interfaces to represent stable associations. Targets with ambiguous or inaccurate oligomeric state assignments, often featuring crystal contact-sized interfaces, represented a confounding factor. For those, a much poorer prediction performance was achieved, while nonetheless often providing helpful clues on the correct oligomeric state of the protein. The prediction performance was very poor for genuine tetrameric targets, where the inaccuracy of the homology-built subunit models and the smaller pair-wise interfaces severely limited the ability to derive the correct assembly mode. Our analysis also shows that docking procedures tend to perform better than standard homology modeling techniques and that highly accurate models of the protein components are not always required to identify their association modes with acceptable accuracy.