Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Computational protein–ligand docking and virtual drug screening with the AutoDock suite

Nature Protocols volume 11, pages 905–919 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Computational docking can be used to predict bound conformations and free energies of binding for small-molecule ligands to macromolecular targets. Docking is widely used for the study of biomolecular interactions and mechanisms, and it is applied to structure-based drug design. The methods are fast enough to allow virtual screening of ligand libraries containing tens of thousands of compounds. This protocol covers the docking and virtual screening methods provided by the AutoDock suite of programs, including a basic docking of a drug molecule with an anticancer target, a virtual screen of this target with a small ligand library, docking with selective receptor flexibility, active site prediction and docking with explicit hydration. The entire protocol will require ∼5 h.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: AutoDockTools (ADT).
Figure 2: Results of docking imatinib to its receptor in bound and apo conformations.
Figure 3: Raccoon2.
Figure 4: Raccoon result filtering.
Figure 5: AutoLigand results.
Figure 6: Docking with explicit hydration.

Accession codes

Accessions

Protein Data Bank

References

  1. Trott, O. & Olson, A.J. AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J. Comput. Chem. 31, 455–461 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Goodsell, D.S. & Olson, A.J. Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing. Proteins 8, 195–202 (1990).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Morris, G.M. et al. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J. Comput. Chem. 19, 1639–1662 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Forli, S. Raccoon for Processing Virtual Screening <http://autodock.scripps.edu/resources/raccoon> (2013).

  5. Morris, G.M. et al. AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J. Comput. Chem. 30, 2785–2791 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Harris, R., Olson, A.J. & Goodsell, D.S. Automated prediction of ligand-binding sites in proteins. Proteins 70, 1506–1517 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sousa, S.F. et al. Protein-ligand docking in the new millennium—a retrospective of 10 years in the field. Curr. Med. Chem. 20, 2296–2314 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Goodsell, D.S., Lauble, H., Stout, C.D. & Olson, A.J. Automated docking in crystallography: analysis of the substrates of aconitase. Proteins 17, 1–10 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Goodsell, D.S., Morris, G.M. & Olson, A.J. Automated docking of flexible ligands: applications of AutoDock. J. Mol. Recognit. 9, 1–5 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Soares, T.A., Goodsell, D.S., Briggs, J.M., Ferreira, R. & Olson, A.J. Docking of 4-oxalocrotonate tautomerase substrates: implications for the catalytic mechanism. Biolpolymers 50, 319–328 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rosenfeld, R.J. et al. Automated docking of ligands to an artificial active site: augmenting crystallographic analysis with computer modeling. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 17, 525–536 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Brik, A. et al. Rapid diversity-oriented synthesis in microtiter plates for in situ screening of HIV protease inhibitors. ChemBioChem 4, 1246–1248 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Brik, A. et al. 1,2,3-Triazole as a peptide surrogate in the rapid synthesis of HIV-1 protease inhibitors. ChemBioChem 6, 1167–1169 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Perryman, A.L. et al. Fragment-based screen against HIV protease. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 75, 257–268 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cosconati, S. et al. Structure-based virtual screening and biological evaluation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis adenosine 5′-phosphosulfate reductase inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 51, 6627–6630 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Perryman, A.L. et al. A virtual screen discovers novel, fragment-sized inhibitors of Mycobacterium tuberculosis InhA. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 55, 645–659 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cosconati, S. et al. Identification of novel beta-secretase inhibitors through inclusion of protein flexibility in virtual screening calculations. FASEB J. 22, 791–798 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cosconati, S. et al. Protein flexibility in virtual screening: the BACE-1 case study. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52, 2697–2704 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jiang, H. et al. Stabilizers of the Max homodimer identified in virtual ligand screening inhibit Myc function. Mol. Pharmacol. 76, 491–502 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Leonard, S.E., Garcia, F.J., Goodsell, D.S. & Carroll, K.S. Redox-based probes for protein tyrosine phosphatases. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 50, 4423–4427 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Huey, R., Goodsell, D.S., Morris, G.M. & Olson, A.J. Grid-based hydrogen bond potentials in improved directionality. Lett. Drug Des. Discov. 1, 178–183 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Huey, R., Morris, G.M., Olson, A.J. & Goodsell, D.S. A semiempirical free energy force field with charge-based desolvation. J. Comput. Chem. 28, 1145–1152 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Forli, S. & Olson, A.J. A force field with discrete displaceable waters and desolvation entropy for hydrated ligand docking. J. Med. Chem. 55, 623–638 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bianco, G., Forli, S., Goodsell, D.S. & Olson, A.J. Covalent docking using autodock: two-point attractor and flexible side chain methods. Protein Sci. 25, 295–301 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cosconati, S. et al. Virtual screening with AutoDock: theory and practice. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 5, 597–607 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lin, J.H., Perryman, A.L., Schames, J.R. & McCammon, J.A. The relaxed complex method: accommodating receptor flexibility for drug design with an improved scoring scheme. Biopolymers 68, 47–62 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Nagar, B. et al. Crystal structures of the kinase domain of c-Abl in complex with the small molecule inhibitors PD173955 and imatinib (STI-571). Cancer Res. 62, 4236–4243 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schindler, T. et al. Structural mechanism for STI-571 inhibition of abelson tyrosine kinase. Science 289, 1938–1942 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health (grant R01 GM069832 to A.J.O.). This is manuscript number 29118 from the Scripps Research Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Integrative Structural and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California, USA

    Stefano Forli, Ruth Huey, Michael E Pique, Michel F Sanner, David S Goodsell & Arthur J Olson

Authors
  1. Stefano Forli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruth Huey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael E Pique
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michel F Sanner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David S Goodsell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Arthur J Olson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this work. D.S.G. and S.F. authored the protocol manuscript with extensive input from the other authors, based on tutorials developed by all authors. All authors have been instrumental in development of the AutoDock suite and training of users.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arthur J Olson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Forli, S., Huey, R., Pique, M. et al. Computational protein–ligand docking and virtual drug screening with the AutoDock suite. Nat Protoc 11, 905–919 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2016.051

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2016.051

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing