Computational methodologies have become a crucial component of many drug discovery programmes, from hit identification to lead optimization and beyond.
One key such methodology — docking of small molecules to protein binding sites — was pioneered during the early 1980s, and remains a highly active area of research.
The docking process involves the prediction of ligand conformation and orientation (or posing) within a targeted binding site. In general, there are two aims of docking studies: accurate structural modelling and correct prediction of activity.
Docking is generally devised as a multi-step process in which each step introduces one or more additional degrees of complexity. The process begins with the application of docking algorithms that pose small molecules in the active site. These algorithms are complemented by scoring functions that are designed to predict the biological activity through the evaluation of interactions between compounds and potential targets.
This article reviews basic concepts and specific features of small-molecule–protein docking methods and several selected applications, with particular emphasis on hit identification and lead optimization.
We attempt to distinguish between the problems of docking compounds into target sites and of scoring docked conformations, because the available data indicate that numerous robust and accurate docking algorithms are available, whereas imperfections of scoring functions continue to be a major limiting factor.
Computational approaches that 'dock' small molecules into the structures of macromolecular targets and 'score' their potential complementarity to binding sites are widely used in hit identification and lead optimization. Indeed, there are now a number of drugs whose development was heavily influenced by or based on structure-based design and screening strategies, such as HIV protease inhibitors. Nevertheless, there remain significant challenges in the application of these approaches, in particular in relation to current scoring schemes. Here, we review key concepts and specific features of small-molecule–protein docking methods, highlight selected applications and discuss recent advances that aim to address the acknowledged limitations of established approaches.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $4.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Berman, H. M. et al. The protein data bank and the challenge of structural genomics. Nature Struct. Biol. 7, 957–959 (2000).
Westbrook, J., Feng, Z., Chen, L., Yang, H. & Berman, H. M. The protein data bank and structural genomics. Nucleic Acid Res. 31, 489–491 (2003).
Blundell, T. L., Jhoti, H. & Abell, C. High-throughput crystallography for lead discovery in drug design. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 1, 45–54 (2002).
Bajorath, J. Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 1, 882–894 (2002).
Walters, W. P., Stahl, M. T. & Murcko, M. A. Virtual screening — an overview. Drug Discov. Today 3, 160–178 (1998).
Langer, T. & Hoffmann, R. D. Virtual screening: an effective tool for lead structure discovery. Curr. Pharm. Design 7, 509–527 (2001).
Gohlke, H. & Klebe, G. Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41, 2644–2676 (2002). A very extensive and informative review with emphasis on quantitative analysis of protein–ligand interactions.
Kuntz, I. D., Blaney, J. M., Oatley, S. J., Langridge, R. & Ferrin, T. E. A geometric approach to macromolecule–ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 161, 269–288 (1982).
Venhorst, J. et al. Homology modeling of rat and human cytochrome P450 2D (CYP2D) isoforms and computational rationalization of experimental ligand-binding specificities. J. Med. Chem. 46, 74–86 (2003).
Williams, P. A. et al. Crystal structure of human cytochrome P450 2C9 with bound warfarin. Nature 424, 464–468 (2003).
Brooijmans, N. & Kuntz, I. D. Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biolmol. Struct. 32, 335–373 (2003). Excellent review of research in the docking arena that contains an instructive section on the conceptually different processes involved in ligand–protein docking.
Halperin, I., Ma, B., Wolfson, H. & Nussinov, R. Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins 47, 409–443 (2002).
Burnett, R. M. & Taylor, J. S. DARWIN: a program for docking flexible molecules. Proteins 41, 173–191 (2000).
Norel, R., Lin, S. L., Wolfson, H. & Nussinov, R. Shape complementarity at protein–protein interfaces. Biopolymers 34, 933–940 (1994).
Norel, R., Petrey, D., Wolfson, H. & Nussinov, R. Examination of shape complementarity in docking of unbound proteins. Proteins 35, 403–419 (1999).
Connolly, M. L. Analytical molecular surface calculation. J. Appl. Cryst. 16, 548–558 (1983).
Connolly, M. Solvent-accessible surface of proteins and nucleic acids. Science 221, 709–713 (1983). References 16 and 17 outline the theoretical foundation of molecular surface calculations that have also become a crucial component of many shape-based docking algorithms.
Norel, R., Wolfson, H. & Nussinov, R. Small molecular recognition: solid angles surface representation and shape complementarity. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen 2, 177–191 (1999).
Goodford, P. J. A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. J. Med. Chem. 28, 849–857 (1985). This seminal paper introduced the idea of potential energy grids and its application to understanding protein–ligand interactions. This concept has been applied and extended in many contemporary docking programs.
Leach, A. R. Molecular Modelling: Principles and Applications (Addison Wesley Longman Limited, Harlow, 1996).
DesJarlais, R. L. Docking flexible ligands to macromolecular receptors by shape. J. Med Chem. 29, 2149–2153 (1986).
Klebe, G. & Rarey, M. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J. Mol. Biol. 261, 470–489 (1996).
Kuntz, I. D. & Leach, A. R. Conformational analysis of flexible ligands in macromolecular receptor sites. J. Comput. Chem. 13, 730–748 (1992).
Ewing, T. J. A., Makino, S., Skillman, A. G. & Kuntz, I. D. DOCK 4.0: search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 15, 411–428 (2001).
Conformation search [online], <http://dock.compbio.ucsf.edu/dock4/html/Manual.f.html> (1998).
Kramer, B., Rarey, M., Lengauer, T. Evaluation of the FlexX incremental construction algorithm for protein–ligand docking. Proteins 37, 228–241 (1999).
Linnainmaa, S., Harwood, D. & Davis, L. S. Pose determination of a three-dimensional object using triangle pairs. IEEE Trans. Comput. Anal. Machine Intelligence 10, 634–646 (1988). An in-depth study of a computer vision technique (pose clustering) that is utilized, for example, in FlexX.
Welch, W., Ruppert, J. & Jain, A. N. Hammerhead: fast, fully automated docking of flexible ligands to protein binding sites. Chem. Biol. 3, 449–462 (1996).
Kearsly, S. K., Underwood, D. J., Sheridan, R. P. & Miller, M. D. Flexibase: a way to enhance the use of molecular docking methods. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 8, 565–582 (1994).
Olson, A. J. & Goodsell, D. S. Automated docking in crystallography: analysis of the substrates of aconitase. Proteins 17, 1–10 (1993).
Read, R. J. & Hart, T. N. A multiple-start Monte Carlo docking method. Proteins 13, 206–222 (1992).
Dixon, J. S. & Oshiro, C. M. Flexible ligand docking using a genetic algorithm. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 9, 113–130 (1995).
Morris, G. M., Goodsell, D. S., Halliday, R. S., Huey, R. & Hart, W. E. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical free energy function. J. Comput. Chem. 19, 1639–1662 (1998).
Jones, G., Willet, P., Glen, R. C., Leach, A. R. & Taylor, R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J. Mol. Biol. 267, 727–748 (1997).
Westhead, D. R., Clark, D. E. & Murray, C. W. A comparison of heuristic search algorithms for molecular docking. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 11, 209–228 (1997).
Baxter, C. A., Murray, C. W., Clark, D. E., Westhead, D. R. & Eldridge, M. D. Flexible docking using tabu search and an empirical estimate of binding affinity. Proteins 33, 367–382 (1998).
Di Nola, A., Berendsen, H. J. C. & Roccatano, D. Molecular dynamics simulation of the docking of substrates to proteins. Proteins 19, 174–182 (1994).
Trosset, J. -Y. & Scheraga, H. A. Reaching the global minimum in docking simulations: a Monte Carlo energy minimization approach using Bezier Splines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 8011–8015 (1995).
Carlson, H. A. & McGammon, J. A. Accommodating protein flexibility in computational drug design. Mol. Pharmacol. 57, 213–218 (2000). Informative review of approaches to treat protein flexibility in the computational study of protein–ligand interactions.
Leach, A. R. Ligand docking to proteins with discrete side-chain flexibility. J. Mol. Biol. 235, 345–356 (1994).
Desmet, J., Maeyer, M. D., Hazes, B. & Lasters, I. The dead end elimination theorem and its use in protein side-chain positioning. Nature 356, 539–542 (1992).
Knegtel, R. M. A., Kuntz, I. D. & Oshiro, C. M. Molecular docking to ensembles of protein structures. J. Mol. Biol. 266, 242–440 (1997).
Kollman, P. A. Free energy calculations: applications to chemical and biochemical phenomena. Chem. Rev. 93, 2395–2417 (1993). Review of the theory of free-energy calculations and their areas of application, including ligand binding.
Simonson, T., Archontis, G. & Karplus, M. Free energy simulations come of age: protein–ligand recognition. Acc. Chem. Res. 35, 430–437 (2002).
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).
Weiner, S. J., Kollman, P. A., Nguyen, D. T. & Case, D. A. An all-atom force field for simulations of proteins and nucleic acids. J. Comput. Chem. 7, 252 (1986).
Verdonk, M. L., Cole, J. C., Hartshorn, M. J., Murray, C. W. & Taylor, R. D. Improved protein–ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins 52, 609–623 (2003).
Böhm, H. -J. LUDI: rule-based automatic design of new substituents for enzyme inhibitor leads. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 6, 593–606 (1992).
Eldridge, M. D., Murray, C. W., Auton, T. R., Paolini, G. V. & Mee, R. P. Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 11, 425–445 (1997).
Rarey, M., Kramer, B., Lengauer, T. & Klebe, G. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J. Mol. Biol. 261, 470–489 (1996).
Rognan, D., Lauemoller, S. L., Holm, A., Buus, S. & Tschinke, V. Predicting binding affinities of protein ligands from three-dimensional models: application to peptide binding to class I major histocompatibility proteins. J. Med. Chem. 42, 4650–4658 (1999).
Sitkoff, D. F., Sharp, K. A. & Honig, B. Accurate calculation of hydration free energies using macroscopic continuum models. J. Phys. Chem. 98, 1978–1983 (1998).
Huo, S., Wang, J., Cieplak, P., Kollman, P. A. & Kuntz, I. D. Molecular dynamics and free energy analyses of cathepsin D–inhibitor interactions: insight into structure-based ligand design. J. Med. Chem. 45, 1412–1419 (2002).
Muegge, I. A knowledge-based scoring function for protein–ligand interactions: probing the reference state. Perspect. Drug Discov. Des. 20, 99–114 (2000).
Muegge, I. Effect of ligand volume correction on PMF scoring. J. Comput. Chem. 22, 418–425 (2001).
Muegge, I. & Martin, Y. C. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. J. Med. Chem. 42, 791–804 (1999).
Gohlke, H., Hendlich, M. & Klebe, G. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 295, 337–356 (2000).
DeWitte, R. S. & Shakhnovich, E. I. SMoG: de novo design method based on simple, fast, and accurate free energy estimates. 1. Methodology and supporting evidence. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 118, 11733–11744 (1996).
Charifson, P. S., Corkery, J. J., Murcko, M. A. & Walters, W. P. Consensus scoring: a method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. J. Med. Chem. 42, 5100–5109 (1999). This study introduced the concept of consensus scoring as an approach to balance imperfections of single scoring functions and improve prediction accuracy.
Wang, R., Lai, L. & Wang, S. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 16, 11–26 (2002).
Perez, C. & Ortiz, A. R. Evaluation of docking functions for protein–ligand docking. J. Med. Chem. 44, 3768–3785 (2001).
Good, A. C. et al. Analysis and optimization of structure-based virtual screening protocols 2. Examination of docked ligand orientations sampling methodology: mapping a pharmacophore for success. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 22, 31–40 (2003).
Baxter, C. A. et al. New approach to molecular docking and its application to virtual screening of chemical databases. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 254–262 (2000).
GOLD Version 1.2. [online], <http://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/products/life_sciences/gold/> (2003).
Sotriffer, C. A., Gohlke, H. & Klebe, G. Docking into knowledge-based potential fields: a comparative evaluation of DrugScore. J. Med. Chem. 45, 1967–1970 (2002).
Wang, R., Lu, Y. & Wang, S. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 46, 2287–2303 (2003).
McGann, M. R., Almond, H. R., Nicholls, A., Grant, J. A. & Brown, F. K. Gaussian docking functions. Biopolymers 68, 76–90 (2003).
Schulz-Gasch, T. & Stahl, M. Binding site characteristics in structure-based virtual screening: evaluation of current docking tools. J. Mol. Model 9, 47–57 (2003).
Erickson, J. A., Jalaie, M., Robertson, D. H., Lewis, R. A. & Vieth, M. Lessons in molecular recognition: the effects of ligand and protein flexibility on molecular docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 47, 45–55 (2004).
Kontoyianni, M., McClellan, L. M. & Sokol, G. S. Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms. J. Med. Chem. 47, 558–565 (2004).
Smith, R., Hubbard, R. E., Gschwend, D. A., Leach, A. R. & Good, A. C. Analysis and optimization of structure-based virtual screening protocols 3. New Methods and old problems in scoring function design. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 22, 41–53 (2003).
Still, W. C., Tempczyk, A., Hawley, R. C. & Hendrickson, T. Semianalytical treatment of solvation for molecular mechanics and dynamics. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 112, 6127–6129 (1990).
Ghosh, A., Rapp, C. S. & Friesner, R. A. A generalized Born model based on a surface integral formulation. J. Phys. Chem. B 102, 10983–10990 (1998).
Nissink, J. W. M. et al. A new test set for validating predictions of protein–ligand interaction. Proteins 49, 457–471 (2002).
Grzybowski, B. A., Ishchenko, A. V., Shimada, J. & Shakhnovich, E. I. From knowledge-based potentials to combinatorial lead design in silico. Acc. Chem. Res. 35, 261–269 (2002).
Diller, D. J. & Li, Y. Kinases, homology models, and high throughput docking. J. Med. Chem. 46, 4638–4647 (2003).
DesJarlais, R. L. et al. Using shape complementarity as an initial screen in designing ligands for a receptor binding site of known three-dimensional structure. J. Med. Chem. 31, 722–729 (1988).
Dean, P. M. & Poornima, C. S. Hydration in drug design. 1. Multiple hydrogen-bonding features of water molecules in mediating protein–ligand interactions. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 9, 500–512 (1995).
McGovern, S. L., Caselli, E., Grigorieff, N. & Shoichet, B. K. A common mechanism underlying promiscous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening. J. Med. Chem. 45, 1712–1722 (2002).
Roche, O. et al. Development of a virtual screening method for identification of 'frequent hitters' in compound libraries. J. Med. Chem. 45, 137–142 (2002).
Doman, T. N. et al. Molecular docking and high-throughput screening for novel inhibitors of protein tyrosine phosphatase-1B. J. Med. Chem. 45, 2213–2221 (2002). An impressive example of the performance of structure-based virtual screening.
McGovern, S. L. & Shoichet, B. K. Information decay in molecular docking screens against holo, apo and modeled conformations of enzymes. J. Med Chem. 46, 2895–2907 (2003). Informative analysis of the influence of chosen protein-structure templates on the quality of docking and scoring.
Lipinski, C. A. & Christopher, A. L. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 23, 3–25 (1997).
Nilakantan, R., Bauman, N. & Venkataraghavan, R. New method for rapid characterization of molecular shapes: applications in drug design. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 33, 79–85 (1993).
Good, A. C., Ewing, T. J. A., Gschwend, D. A. & Kuntz, I. D. New molecular shape descriptors: application in database screening. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 9, 1–12 (1995).
Zauhar, R. J., Moyna, G., Tian, L., Li, Z. & Welsh, W. J. Shape signatures: a new approach to computer-aided ligand-and receptor-based drug design. J. Med. Chem. 46, 5674–5690 (2003).
Rastelli, G. et al. Docking and database screening reveal new classes of Plasmodium falciparum dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 46, 2834–2845 (2003).
Choong, I. C. et al. Identification of potent and selective small-molecule inhibitors of caspase-3 through the use of extended tethering and structure-based drug design. J. Med. Chem. 45, 5005–5022 (2002).
Kick, E. K. et al. Structure-based design and combinatorial chemistry yield low nanomolar inhibitors of cathepsin D. Chem. Biol. 4, 297–307 (1997). An instructive study highlighting the potential of interfacing docking analysis and targeted library design.
Karplus, M. & Miranker, A. Functionality maps of binding sites: a multiple copy simultaneous search method. Proteins 11, 29–34 (1991).
Caflisch, A. Computational combinatorial ligand design: application to human α-thrombin. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 10, 372–396 (1996).
Bohm, H. J. The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein–ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 8, 243–256 (1994). Pioneering development of an empirical scoring function using multiple linear regression to calculate coefficients for the most important terms contributing to ligand binding.
Böhm, H. J. Prediction of binding constants of protein ligands: a fast method for the polarization of hits obtained from de novo design on 3D database search programs. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 12, 309–323 (1998).
Murcko, M. A. & Rotstein, S. H. GroupBuild: a fragment-based method for de novo drug design. J. Med. Chem. 36, 1700–1710 (1993).
Murcko, M. A. & Rotstein, S. H. GenStar: a method for de novo drug design. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 7, 23–43 (1993).
Howe, W. J. & Moon, J. B. 3D database searching and de novo construction methods in molecular design. Comput. Meth. 3, 697–711 (1990).
Bohacek, R. S. & McMartin, C. Multiple highly diverse structures complementary to enzyme binding sites: results of extensive application of a de novo design method incorporating combinatorial growth. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 116, 5560–5571 (1994).
Vinkers, H. M. et al. SYNOPSIS: SYNthesize and OPtimize system in silico. J. Med. Chem. 46, 2765–2773 (2003).
Guimaraes, C. R. W. & de Alencastro, R. B. Thrombin inhibition by novel benzamidine derivatives: a free-energy perturbation study. J. Med. Chem. 45, 4995–5004 (2003).
Pearlman, D. A. & Charifson, P. S. Improved scoring of ligand–protein interactions using OWFEG free energy grids. J. Med. Chem. 44, 502–511 (2001).
Aqvist, J., Medina, C. & Samuelsson, J. E. A new method for predicting binding affinity in computer-aided drug design. Protein Eng. 7, 385–391 (1994). This article presents an early formulation and use of linear response and linear interaction approximations in estimating binding affinity of protein ligands.
Tounge, B. A. & Reynolds, C. H. Calculation of the binding affinity of β-secretase inhibitors using the linear interaction energy method. J. Med. Chem. 46, 2074–2082 (2003).
Rizzo, R. C., Wang, D. -P., Tirado-Rives, J. & Jorgensen, W. L. Validation of a model for the complex of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase with sustiva through computation of resistance profiles. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 122, 12898–12900 (2003).
Rizzo, R. C., Tirado-Rives, J. & Jorgensen, W. L. Estimation of binding affinities for HEPT and nevirapine analogues with HIV-1 reverse transcriptase via Monte Carlo simulations. J. Med. Chem. 44, 145–154 (2003).
Kroeger-Smith, M. B. et al. Molecular modeling calculations of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase nonnucleoside inhibitors: correlation of binding energy with biological activity for novel 2-aryl-substituted benzimidazole analogues. J. Med. Chem. 46, 1940–1947 (2003).
Udier-Blagovic, M., Tirado-Rives, J. & Jorgensen, W. L. Validation of a model for the complex of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase with nonnucleoside inhibitor TMC125. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 125, 6016–6017 (2003).
Rizzo, R. C. et al. Prediction of activity for nonnucleoside inhibitors with HIV-1 reverse transcriptase based on Monte Carlo simulations. J. Med. Chem. 45, 2970–2987 (2002).
Ostrovsky, D., Udier-Blagovic, M. & Jorgensen, W. L. Analyses of activity for Factor Xa inhibitors based on Monte Carlo simulations. J. Med. Chem. 46, 5691–5699 (2003).
van Lipzig, M. M. et al. Prediction of ligand binding affinity and orientation of xenoestrogens to the estrogen receptor by molecular dynamics simulations and the linear interaction energy method. J. Med. Chem. 47, 1018–1030 (2004). This work provides a good example of linear interaction methods applied to binding energies ranging over many orders of magnitude.
Kollman, P. A. et al. Calculating structures and free energies of complex molecules: combining molecular mechanics and continuum models. Acc. Chem. Res. 33, 889–897 (2000).
Masukawa, K. M., Kollman, P. A. & Kuntz, I. D. Investigation of neuraminidase-substrate recognition using molecular dynamics and free energy calculations. J. Med. Chem. 46, 5628–5637 (2003).
Sheridan, R., Holloway, M. K., McGaughey, G. B., Mosley, R. T. & Singh, S. B. A simple method for visualizing the differences between related receptor sites. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 21, 71–79 (2002).
Deng, Z., Chuaqui, C. & Singh, J. Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein–ligand binding interactions. J. Med. Chem. 47, 337–344 (2004).
Horvath, D. A virtual screening approach applied to the search for trypanothione reductase inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 40, 2412–2423 (1997). The study details many possible scoring terms for protein–ligand complexes and is a good example of the value of refitting parameters for a particular protein class and series of ligands.
Matter, H. et al. Design and quantitative structure–activity relationship of 3-amidinobenzyl-1H-indole-2-carboxamides as potent, nonchiral and selective inhibitors of blood coagulation factor Xa. J. Med. Chem. 45, 2749–2769 (2002).
Murcia, M. & Ortiz, A. R. Virtual screening with flexible docking and COMBINE-based models. Application to a series of factor Xa inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 47, 805–820 (2004).
van de Waterbeemd, H. & Gifford, E. ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 192–204 (2003).
Omiecinski, C. J. Concise review of the cytochrome P450s and their roles in toxicology. Toxicol. Sci. 48, 151–156 (1999).
de Groot, M. J., Ackland, M. J., Horne, V. A., Alex, A. A. & Jones, B. C. Novel approach to predicting P450-mediated drug metabolism: development of a combined protein and pharmacophore model for CYP2D6. J. Med. Chem. 42, 1515–1524 (1999).
de Groot, M. J., Ackland, M. J., Horne, V. A., Alex, A. A. & Jones, B. C. A novel approach to predicting P450 mediated drug metabolism. CYP2D6 catalyzed n-dealkylation reactions and qualitative metabolite predictions using a combined protein and pharmacophore model for CYP2D6. J. Med. Chem. 42, 4062–4070 (1999).
de Groot, M. J. Development of a combined protein and pharmacophore model for cytochrome P450 2C9. J. Med. Chem. 45, 1983–1993 (2002).
Park, J. -Y. & Harris, D. Construction and assessment of models of CYP2E1: Predictions of metabolism from docking, molecular dynamics, and density functional theoretical calculations. J. Med. Chem. 46, 1645–1660 (2003).
Godden, J. W., Stahura, F. L. & Bajorath, J. Statistical analysis of computational docking of large compound databases to distinct protein binding sites. J. Comput. Chem. 20, 1634–1643 (1999).
Briem, H. & Kuntz, I. D. Molecular similarity based on DOCK-generated fingerprints. J. Med. Chem. 39, 3401–3408 (1996).
Su, A. I. et al. Docking molecules by families to increase the diversity of hits in database screens: computational strategy and experimental evaluation. Proteins 42, 279–293 (2001).
Rognan, D., Lauemoller, S. L., Holm, A., Buus, S., Tschinke V. Predicting binding affinities of protein ligands from three-dimensional models: application to peptide binding to class I major histocompatibility proteins. J. Med. Chem. 42, 4650–4658 (1999).
Wei, B. Q., Baase, W. A., Weaver, L. H., Matthews, B. W. & Shoichet, B. K. A model binding site for testing scoring functions in molecular docking. J. Mol. Biol. 322, 339–355 (2002).
Fradera, X., Knegtel, M. A., Mestres, J. Similarity-driven flexible ligand docking. Proteins 40, 623–626 (2000).
Lamb, M. L. et al. Design, docking, and evaluation of multiple libraries against multiple targets. Proteins 42, 296–318 (2001).
Aronov, A. M., Munagala, N. R., Kuntz, I. D. & Wang, C. C. Virtual screening of combinatorial libraries across a gene family in search of inhibitors of Giardia lamblia guanine phosphoribosyltransferase. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45, 2571–2576 (2001).
Wang, R., Liu, L., Lai, L. & Tang, Y. SCORE: a new empirical method for estimating the binding affinity of a protein-ligand complex. J. Mol. Model 4, 379–394 (1998).
Tao, P. & Lai, L. Protein ligand docking based on empirical method for binding affinity estimation. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 15, 429–446 (2001).
Chemical Computing Group. MOE. 2003. Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Friesner, R. A. et al. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 47, 1739–1749 (2004).
Kearsley, S. K., Underwood, D. J., Sheridan, R. P. & Miller, M. D. Flexibases: a way to enhance the use of molecular docking methods. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 8, 565–582 (1994).
Peng, H. et al. Identification of novel inhibitors of BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase via virtual screening. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 13, 3693–3699 (2003).
McNally, V. A. et al. Identification of a novel class of inhibitor of human and Escherichia coli thymidine phosphorylase by in silico screening. Bio. Med. Chem. Lett. 13, 3705–3709 (2003).
Brenk, R. et al. Virtual screening for submicromolar leads of tRNA-guanine transglycosylase based on a new unexpected binding mode detected by crystal structure analysis. J. Med. Chem. 46, 1133–1143 (2003).
Kamionka, M. et al. In silico and NMR identification of inhibitors of the IGF-I and IGF-Binding protein-5 interaction. J. Med. Chem. 45, 5655–5660 (2002).
Vangrevelinghe, E. et al. Discovery of a potent and selective protein kinase CK2 inhibitor by high-througput docking. J. Med. Chem. 46, 2656–2662 (2003).
Enyedy, I. J. et al. Discovery of small-molecule inhibitors of Bcl-2 through structure-based computer screening. J. Med. Chem. 44, 4313–4324 (2001).
H.D. and J.R.F. contributed equally to this paper. This manuscript is dedicated to Wolfram Saenger, Free University Berlin, on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday.
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
The process of determining whether a given conformation and orientation of a ligand fits the active site. This is usually a fuzzy procedure that returns many alternative results.
Both posing and ranking involve scoring. The pose score is often a rough measure of the fit of a ligand into the active site. The rank score is generally more complex and might attempt to estimate binding energies.
A more advanced process than pose scoring that typically takes several results from an initial scoring phase and re-evaluates them. This process usually attempts to estimate the free energy of binding as accurately as possible. Although the posing phase might use simple energy calculations (electrostatic and van der Waals), ranking procedures typically involve more elaborate calculations (perhaps including properties such as entropy or explicit solvation).
- POSE SPACE
All degrees of freedom involved in the process of placing one molecule relative to another. For example, for two rigid molecules the pose space simply consists of relative orientations. When one of the molecules, the ligand, is allowed to be flexible, the pose space comprises both the conformational space of the ligand and orientational space of ligand and receptor.
A function expressing the energy of a system as a sum of diverse molecular mechanics (or other) terms.
- TORSIONAL ENTROPY
Entropy associated with a rotatable bond in a molecule. Immobilization of a rotatable bond on binding leads to loss of its torsional (or rotational) entropy.
- REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Determination of parameter values for a chosen (linear or nonlinear) function to best fit a set of observations.
- POTENTIAL OF MEAN FORCE
(PMF). In the context of docking and scoring, PMFs are derived from statistical analysis of experimentally observed distributions and frequencies of specific atom-pair interactions in a large collection of protein–ligand structures. Interaction potentials between each atom pair in two molecules (for example, ligand and protein) approximate the free energy of each pair-wise interaction as a function of inter-atomic distance.
- LINEAR DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
Mathematical analysis based on two classes of data and two independent variables (a, b) that attempts to find a line that best separates the data. This line is orthogonal to the discriminant function that is a linear combination of the original variables, in this case: F = caa + cbb (ca, cb; coefficients).
The spatial arrangement of atoms or groups in a molecule known or predicted to be responsible for specific biological activity.
- HOLO-, APO-ENZYME
Holo-: ligand-bound form of an enzyme; apo-: uncomplexed form. The original definitions referred to enzymes and cofactors, rather than ligands, but ligands and cofactors are often synonymously used.
- NORMAL MODE
An oscillation in which all particles of a system move with the same frequency and phase.
About this article
Cite this article
Kitchen, D., Decornez, H., Furr, J. et al. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3, 935–949 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1549
Comparison of structure- and ligand-based scoring functions for deep generative models: a GPCR case study
Journal of Cheminformatics (2021)
Investigating the binding affinity, molecular dynamics, and ADMET properties of 2,3-dihydrobenzofuran derivatives as an inhibitor of fungi, bacteria, and virus protein
Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences (2021)
Journal of Cheminformatics (2021)
CASTELO: clustered atom subtypes aided lead optimization—a combined machine learning and molecular modeling method
BMC Bioinformatics (2021)
BMC Bioinformatics (2021)