D3R Grand Challenge 2: blind prediction of protein–ligand poses, affinity rankings, and relative binding free energies

Abstract

The Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) ran Grand Challenge 2 (GC2) from September 2016 through February 2017. This challenge was based on a dataset of structures and affinities for the nuclear receptor farnesoid X receptor (FXR), contributed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. The dataset contained 102 IC50 values, spanning six orders of magnitude, and 36 high-resolution co-crystal structures with representatives of four major ligand classes. Strong global participation was evident, with 49 participants submitting 262 prediction submission packages in total. Procedurally, GC2 mimicked Grand Challenge 2015 (GC2015), with a Stage 1 subchallenge testing ligand pose prediction methods and ranking and scoring methods, and a Stage 2 subchallenge testing only ligand ranking and scoring methods after the release of all blinded co-crystal structures. Two smaller curated sets of 18 and 15 ligands were developed to test alchemical free energy methods. This overview summarizes all aspects of GC2, including the dataset details, challenge procedures, and participant results. We also consider implications for progress in the field, while highlighting methodological areas that merit continued development. Similar to GC2015, the outcome of GC2 underscores the pressing need for methods development in pose prediction, particularly for ligand scaffolds not currently represented in the Protein Data Bank ( http://www.pdb.org ), and in affinity ranking and scoring of bound ligands.

Finding the ΔΔG spot: Are predictors of binding affinity changes upon mutations in protein–protein interactions ready for it?

“…From 2001, CAPRI has been playing a central role in stimulating the progress of docking algorithms and scoring functions as described in literature. 15,[101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108] In the 5th edition, CAPRI was extended to assess the methods to predict the impact of mutations for two designed influenza hemagglutinin binders based on yeast display enrichment data obtained using deep sequencing. 15,40,104 This assessment reported severe difficulties of docking scoring functions for predicting the impact of mutations on PPIs.…”

Computer‐Assisted Selective Optimization of Side‐Activities—from Cinalukast to a PPARα Modulator

“…With this attractive side-activity, 1 was chosen as lead for SOSA-based optimization toward PPARa agonism with computational support. HYDE was successfully appliedo nh ydrophobic ligand bindings ites previously [13][14][15][16] and appeared suitable for predicting the interaction of 1 and analogues with the highly lipophilic PPARa ligand binding site. [12] HYDE estimates free energies of binding for ligand-protein complexesf ocusing on hydrogen bond formation between ligand and protein as well as dehydration of bindings ites.…”

“…[12] Therein, it considers ligand geometry and interaction angles. HYDE was successfully appliedo nh ydrophobic ligand bindings ites previously [13][14][15][16] and appeared suitable for predicting the interaction of 1 and analogues with the highly lipophilic PPARa ligand binding site. Although scoring functions forc omputational ranking of protein-ligand interactions are error-prone in many cases, it was shown that scoring can have predictive powera nd provide reliable correlation between computational score and biological potencyf or some targets.…”

Computational chemistry in drug lead discovery and design

“…Computational chemistry is today an established and highly valuable tool in the drug discovery pipeline . However, in spite of the tremendous progress and achievements in the field, the recent blind challenges for pose prediction and binding free energy calculation in protein‐ligand systems ran by the Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) in 2015 and 2016 stressed the necessity of further method development and benchmarking for accurate pose prediction and affinity ranking of bound ligands.…”