Abdelouahab Chikhi^* and Abderrahmane Bensegueni

¹Laboratory of Theoretical Chemistry, Department of Chemistry. Faculty of Sciences,   Mentouri University,
  Constantine, Algeria

²Laboratory of Microbiological Applications, Department of Biochemistry-Microbiology. Faculty of natural and
  life Sciences, Mentouri University, Constantine, Algeria

Copyright: © 2008 Abdelouahab C, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Structure-based lead optimization approaches are increasingly playing a role in the drug-discovery process. Virtual screening by molecular docking has become a largely used approach to lead discovery in the pharmaceutical industry when a high-resolution structure of the biological target of interest is available. The performance of three docking programs (Arguslab, Autodock and FlexX), for virtual database screening, is studied. Autodock and FlexX are well established commercial packages while Arguslab is distributed freely for Windows platforms by Planaria Software. Comparisons of these docking programs and scoring functions using a large and diverse data set of pharmaceutically interesting targets and active compounds are carried out. We focus on the problem of docking and scoring flexible compounds which are sterically capable of docking into a rigid conformation of the receptor. The three dimensional structures of a carefully chosen set of 126 pharmaceutically relevant proteinligand complexes were used for the comparative study. The Autodock methodology is shown to consistently yield enrichments superior to the two alternative methods, while FlexX outperforms largely Arguslab.

Drug discovery; Docking programs; Scoring functions; Biological target; Comparative study; ArgusLab; Autodock; FlexX

The development and implementation of a range of molecular docking algorithms, based on different search methods (Taylor et al., 2002, Halperin et al., 2002) was observed in the last few years. This approach has had several recent successes in drug discovery (Sechi et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2005).

In the field of molecular modeling, docking is a method which predicts the preferred orientation of one molecule to a second when bound to each other to form a stable complex (Lengauer and Rarey, 1996). Knowledge of the preferred orientation in turn may be used to predict the strength of association or binding affinity between two molecules using for example scoring functions.

Docking is frequently used to predict the binding orientation of small molecule drug candidates to their protein targets in order to in turn predict the affinity and activity of the small molecule. Hence docking plays an important role in the rational design of drugs (Kitchen et al., 2004). Given the biological and pharmaceutical significance of molecular docking, considerable efforts have been directed towards improving the methods used to predict docking.

Evaluation of existing docking algorithms can assist in the choice of the must suitable docking programs for any particular study. Effectively, several studies estimating and comparing the accuracies of protein-ligand programs like Dock, ICM, Gold have been reported (Perola et al., 2004 ; Bursulaya et al., 2003).

The goal of this study was to evaluate the ability of ArgusLab, a freely distributed molecular modeling package in which molecular docking is implemented, to reproduce crystallographic binding orientations and to compare its accuracy with that of the widely well established docking packages, Autodock and FlexX.

In all algorithms studied here, the receptor is treated as a rigid body and a grid potential is used to evaluate the scoring functions. This simplification allows one to perform docking more efficiently, which is especially crucial in database screening. Arguslab requires a PDB format file for both ligand and receptor. The binding site was defined from the coordinates of the ligand in the original PDB file. Argusdock exhaustive search docking engine was used, with grid resolution of 0.40 Å. Docking precision was set to ‘high precision’ and ‘flexible ligand docking’ mode was employed for each docking run.

AutoDock requires the receptor and ligand coordinates in MOL2 format. Nonpolar hydrogen atoms were removed from the receptor file and their partial charges were added to the corresponding carbon atoms. The program Mol2topdbqs was used to transform the receptor MOL2 file into the PDBQS format file containing the receptor atom coordinates, partial charges and solvation parameters. The program AutoTors was used to transform the ligand MOL2 file into a PDBQ file, merge nonpolar hydrogen atoms and define torsions. The grid calculations were set up with the utility Mkgpf3 and maps were calculated with the program AutoGrid. The grid maps were centered on the ligand's binding site and were of dimension 61× 61 × 61 points. The grid spacing was 0.375 Å yielding a receptor model that included atoms within 22.9 Å of the reference binding site center. The default parameter settings generated by the program Mkdpf3 were used for docking. For each complex 10 dockings were performed. The initial population was set to 50 individuals; maximum number of energy evaluations was 2.5×105; maximum number of generations was 27,000. The other parameters provided by the default setting were the same as in the followed reference (Morris et al., 1998).

FlexX requires a MOL2 format file for the ligand and a PDB format file for the receptor. The default settings as provided with the FlexX package were used for flexible docking and database screening. The conformational flexibility of the ligand is modeled by a discrete set of preferred torsional angles for acyclic single bonds. The rings were considered rigid, since the program CORINA for treating multiple conformations of the rings was not included in the distribution. The active site and the interaction surface of the receptor were defined by using a reference ligand and a 6.5 Å cutoff distance. Base fragments were selected automatically. The maximum number of base fragments was 4. The base fragment was placed into the active site using two algorithms. The first one superimposes triples of interaction centers of a base fragment with triples of compatible interactions in the active site. The second algorithm, called matching, is used when the base fragment had fewer than three interaction centers. The sampling was done with 400 solutions per partial solution at each iteration of incremental construction.

The best ranking poses predicted by the three programs Arguslab, Autodock and FlexX are shown in the figure 1 and their root mean square deviation (RMSD) values from the original crystallographic pose determined. It can be observed that both Autodock and FlexX outerform Arguslab. For RMSD interval < 2Å, the difference in docking accuracies between the three programs is so important but decrease significantly in RMSD interval < 3Å.

Figure 2 shows the evaluation of the docking algorithms for their sampling accuracy. The percentage of poses with RMSD within 2Å from the experimental structure was 65% for Autodock, 55% for FlexX and only 30% for ArgusLab. This confirms the results reported by earlier studies, Autodock seems to be highly efficient in terms of sampling (Badry et al., 2003). However, under less rigorous conditions, the performance of ArgusLab is hugely improved with 64% of the top ten poses falling within 3Å of the crystallographic pose. This signifies that ArgusLab still gives some biological results and can be used in educational demonstrations.

The effect of a ligand parameter on docking accuracy is another kind of analysis we have carried out (figure 3). It is a well-known fact that as the number of rotatable bonds of the ligand increases, the docking accuracy falls since a much larger conformational space has to be sampled. The complexes in the present study were divided into three groups, ligands with 1 to <10 rotatable bonds, ligands with 11 to < 15 rotatable bonds and those with > 15 rotatable bonds. The results confirm earlier works. Indeed for all algorithms, the docking accuracy decreases when the number of rotatable bonds increases. Also in all cases, accuracy of both Autodock and FlexX is approximately double that of ArgusLab. This decrease is very pronounced when the number of rotatable bonds exceed 15. Though, an essential remark is that docking time in both ArgusLab and FlexX is typically much shorter than that of Autodock.

Figure 2: Top ten poses with reference to crystallographic pose

Figure 3:Ligand rotatable bonds in relation to docking accuracy.

To further evaluate these docking programs, another test we have conducted is to study the chemical nature of their protein-ligand interactions and then to check the success rate of each scoring function (figure 4). The classification is aided by using X-Score. For any given proteinligand complex, if the contribution of the H-bond term in XScore is 50% larger than the hydrophobic term, it is classified as the "hydrophilic" type. If the contribution of the hydrophobic term is 50% larger than the H-bond term, it is classified as the "hydrophobic" type. Otherwise, the complex is considered to have mixed hydrophilic and hydrophobic factors in the protein-ligand interaction and thus is classified as the "mixed" type. We have used X-Score for this classification process because it is the only one with open source codes, so we can analyze the hydrophobic and the hydrophilic terms conveniently. Best results for hydrogen bond driven complexes are given by FlexX (73%) and for hydrophobic-burial driven ones are given by Autodock (67%). There is no perceptible change in the docking accuracy of A rgusLab with degree of hydrogen bonding. Studies for determination of IC50 and MIC, in specialized laboratory, are needed to confirm these in silico results.

Figure 4: % of hydrogen bonding in terms of docking accuracy.

Our results suggest that the two docking programs Autodock and FlexX do a reasonable job in docking and should aid significantly the drug discovery process. However, Autodock outperforms the two other programs and its use for molecular docking seems to be most advantageous. This study shows that commercial packages surpass the freely available docking program in all parameters experienced. The study also revealed that, in less rigorous conditions, ArgusLab can be used for demonstration of molecular docking method to novices in this area owing to its easiness to use graphical user interface. Moreover, some future advances can be made in this program at the expense of the docking time.

Understanding the ruling principles whereby protein receptors recognize, interact, and associate with molecular substrates and inhibitors is of paramount importance in drug discovery efforts. Protein-ligand docking aims to predict and rank the structures arising from the association between a given ligand and a target protein of known 3D structure. Despite the breathtaking advances in the field over the last decades and the widespread application of docking methods, several downsides still exist, in particular, protein flexibility. Indeed, a critical aspect for a thorough understanding of the principles that guide ligand binding in proteins is a major hurdle in current protein-ligand docking efforts and needs to be more efficiently accounted for. In the future the key concepts of protein-ligand docking methods will be outlined, with major emphasis being given to the general strengths and weaknesses that presently characterize this methodology.

The authors would like to thank Pr David Perahia for the AutoDock 3.0 academic license.

1. ArgusLab 4.0, Mark A. Thompson, Planaria Software LLC, Seattle, http://www.ArgusLab.com.

2. Badry D. Bursulaya, Maxim T, Ruben A, Charles LB III : (2003)  Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design  17: 755–763.   
   
   
3. Bursulaya BD, Totrov M, Abagyan R, Brooks CL. 3rd (2003)  Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking. J Comput Aided Mol Des  17: 755-763.  »  CrossRef  »  PubMed  »  Google Scholar
   
   
4. Halperin I, Ma B, Wolfson H, Nussinov R  (2002)  Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins  47: 409- 443.  »  CrossRef  »  PubMed  »  Google Scholar
   
   
5. Kitchen DB, Decornez H, Furr JR, Bajorath J (2004)  Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nature reviews Drug discovery  3: 935–949.  »  CrossRef  »  PubMed  »  Google Scholar
   
   
6. Kramer B, Rarey M, Lengauer T  (1999)  Evaluation of the F LEX X Incremental Construction Algorithm for Protein–Ligand Docking. Proteins  37: 228-241. »  CrossRef  »  PubMed  »  Google Scholar
   
   
7. Lengauer T, Rarey M (1996)  Computational methods for biomolecular docking. Curr Opin Struct Biol  6: 402–406.   »  CrossRef  »  PubMed  »  Google Scholar
   
   
8. Liu Z, Huang C, Fan K, Wei P, Chen H, et al. (2005)  Virtual screening of novel noncovalent inhibitors for SARSCoV 3C-like proteinase. J Chem Inf Model  45: 10-17.   »  CrossRef  »  PubMed  »  Google Scholar
   
   
9. Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Halliday RS, Huey R, Hart WE, et al . (1998)  Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J Comput Chem  19: 1639.  »  CrossRef  »   Google Scholar
   
   
10. Perola E, Walters WP, Charifson PS  (2004)  A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins  56: 235-249.   »  CrossRef  »  PubMed  »  Google Scholar
    
    
11. Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T, Klebe G  (1996)  A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol  261: 470-489.   »  CrossRef  »  PubMed  »  Google Scholar
    
    
12. Sechi M, Sannia L, Carta F, Palomba M, Dallocchio R, et al.   (2005)  Design of novel bioisosteres of betadiketo acid inhibitors of HIV-1 integrase. Antivir Chem Chemother  16: 41-46.   »  CrossRef  »  PubMed  »  Google Scholar
    
    
13. Taylor RD, Jewsbury PJ, Essex JW  (2002)  A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J Comput Aided Mol  Des  16: 151-166.  »  CrossRef  »  PubMed  »  Google Scholar
    
    
14. Thompson MA  (2004)  Molecular docking using ArgusLab, an efficient shape-based search algorithm and the AScore scoring function. ACS meeting  Philadelphia  172, CINF 42, PA.  »  
    
    

» XML (31 KB)
» PDF (365 KB)
» Citation

» Write a Response
» Read other Responses
» Publishing with OMICS
   Publishing Group

» E-mail This Article
» Print This Article
» Rights and    Permissions

Related Article at