Using Consensus-Shape Clustering To Identify Promiscuous Ligands and Protein Targets and To Choose the Right Query for Shape-Based Virtual Screening

Abstract

Ligand-based shape matching approaches have become established as important and popular virtual screening (VS) techniques. However, despite their relative success, many authors have discussed how best to choose the initial query compounds and which of their conformations should be used. Furthermore, it is increasingly the case that pharmaceutical companies have multiple ligands for a given target and these may bind in different ways to the same pocket. Conversely, a given ligand can sometimes bind to multiple targets, and this is clearly of great importance when considering drug side-effects. We recently introduced the notion of spherical harmonic-based "consensus shapes" to help deal with these questions. Here, we apply a consensus shape clustering approach to the 40 protein-ligand targets in the DUD data set using PARASURF/PARAFIT. Results from clustering show that in some cases the ligands for a given target are split into two subgroups which could suggest they bind to different subsites of the same target. In other cases, our clustering approach sometimes groups together ligands from different targets, and this suggests that those ligands could bind to the same targets. Hence spherical harmonic-based clustering can rapidly give cross-docking information while avoiding the expense of performing all-against-all docking calculations. We also report on the effect of the query conformation on the performance of shape-based screening of the DUD data set and the potential gain in screening performance by using consensus shapes calculated in different ways. We provide details of our analysis of shape-based screening using both PARASURF/PARAFIT and ROCS, and we compare the results obtained with shape-based and conventional docking approaches using MSSH/SHEF and GOLD. The utility of each type of query is analyzed using commonly reported statistics such as enrichment factors (EF) and receiver-operator-characteristic (ROC) plots as well as other early performance metrics.

GESSE: Predicting Drug Side Effects from Drug–Target Relationships

“…Figure 7 compares the similar distribution of the 554 drugs in NetworkDB and the 187 drugs in DrugBank_187 into the 112 TCs. This observation confirms the utility of using CMs to cluster and reduce data in a representative way, as described previously 45,46,28 . It is also worth noting the high average top hit rate obtained, comparable to that using independent SEs ( Figure 5).…”

Impact of the CXCR4 structure on docking-based virtual screening of HIV entry inhibitors

“…For example, by including receptor backbone flexibility, it is possible to consolidate all the mutation data pertaining to the binding of the cyclam compounds [14]. Techniques that deal with "difficult targets", that is to say targets with multiple binding sites or multiple binding modes, have recently appeared in order to improve the screening performance, such as consensus shape screening [59][60][61].…”

VS-APPLE: A Virtual Screening Algorithm Using Promiscuous Protein–Ligand Complexes

“…% active (8) where N is the total number of compounds (both actives and decoys) for a target protein, N x% is the number of compounds scoring the top x%, and N x% active is the number of actives among the top x%-scoring compounds. Because only a small fraction of a database is tested experimentally, it is desirable to recognize active molecules as early as possible.…”