Jul 2026· Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling· Vol 66, pp. 8269 - 8283· 0 citations· 59 references
MedicineComputer Science
TL;DR
Assessment of pose prediction methods when the bound structure of a reference ligand is known and the likely binding mode(s) of a related compound are needed, and this work focuses on cases where the new compound has multiple potential binding modes.
Abstract
The quality of protein-ligand binding affinity prediction is often limited by the accuracy of positioning the ligand correctly inside the binding site. However, pose accuracy is a secondary concern in high-throughput virtual screening, which is the application scenario in mind when most docking protocols are developed. On the other hand, similar protocols are also applied to position ligands in the binding pocket prior to free-energy calculations, and the accuracy of docking protocols is not well known in this case, especially when structures of analogues are available as templates to guide the docking as is typical in lead optimization. Docking benchmarks typically focus on the ability of docking methods to generate poses with a low RMSD to crystal structures, but for physics-based affinity prediction methods, we also need the ability to identify potential alternate binding modes of a new ligand that might be viable. This is especially relevant for ligand modifications which break local symmetry, leading to multiple potential substituent orientations, such as substitutions of phenyl rings. Here, our focus is on assessment of pose prediction methods when the bound structure of a reference ligand is known (typical in structure-based drug design) and the likely binding mode(s) of a related compound are needed, and we focus on cases where the new compound has multiple potential binding modes. To assess templated docking protocols on their ability to identify binding modes when starting from a solid reference structure, we collected a set of 60 complex structures from the PDB which have more than one ligand binding mode – shown in the PDB records as alternative locations in the ligand. Our results suggest success rates of only 30-50% for finding alternative binding modes, which are modest compared to benchmarks of the same docking programs on the Astex diverse set (70-90% success rates). Overall, we conclude that docking methods would benefit from further tuning or improvement to become more effective in lead optimization.
Docking should be considered as an important and computationally inexpensive reference baseline for binding affinity prediction, and the scoring function and the protein structure are the most important factors for binding affinity accuracy in rigid docking with the MOE software.
Konstantinos Tornesakis, J. Essex, Paul A. Cox et al.· Journal of Computer-Aided Mo...· 0 citations
Analysis of subsequent use in docking highlights that Fpocket and CAVIAR are the best performing cavity prediction tools in this context and accurate binding site input does not guarantee accurate binding pose predictions and the more restrained the input is, the more reliable the docking results are.
Diana A Kondinskaia, Bojana Popovic· Journal of Computational Che...· 0 citations
Scaffold-Guided Structure Refinement is presented, leveraging information on known binders within ligand series targeting a specific protein, based on the observation that shared molecular scaffolds among binders exhibit conserved binding modes.
J. Pletzer-Zelgert, Matthias Rarey, Bernd Kuhn· Journal of Medicinal Chemist...· 0 citations
HydroDock is extended to challenging targets with open binding pockets, populated by highly mobile water molecules that are the most troublesome for drug design, and improved docking accuracy with increases of 28% (10%) in median structural (and ranking) performance.
Bayar Bayarsaikhan, C. Hetényi, B. Z. Zsidó· ACS Physical Chemistry Au· 0 citations
The interface prediction program WHISCY is presented, which combines surface conservation and structural information to predict protein–protein interfaces and demonstrates the potential of using interface predictions to drive protein–protein docking.
S. D. de Vries, A. V. van Dijk, A. M. J. J. Bonvin· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.