Bioactive conformational generation of small molecules: A comparative analysis between force-field and multiple empirical criteria based methods

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Fang Bai (1) (2)
  Xiaofeng Liu (3)
  Jiabo Li (5)
  Haoyun Zhang (3)
  Hualiang Jiang (3) (4)
  Xicheng Wang (2)
  Honglin Li (3)
  
• 刊名：BMC Bioinformatics
• 出版年：2010
• 出版时间：December 2010
• 年：2010
• 卷：11
• 期：1
• 全文大小：1785KB
• 参考文献：1. Seeliger D, Groot BD: tCONCOORD-GUI: visually supported conformational sampling of bioactive molecules. / J Comput Chem 2009, 30:1160-. CrossRef
  2. Liu X, Bai F, Ouyang S, Wang X, Li H, Jiang H: Cyndi: a multi-objective evolution algorithm based method for bioactive molecular conformational generation. / BMC Bioinformatics 2009, 10:101. CrossRef
  3. Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC: A genetic algorithm for flexible molecular overlay and pharmacophore elucidation. / J Comput Aided-Mol 1995, 9:532-49. CrossRef
  4. Takagi T, Amano M, Tomimoto M: Novel Method for the Evaluation of 3D Conformation Generators. / J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:1377-388. CrossRef
  5. Vainio MJ, Johnson MS: Generating Conformer Ensembles Using a Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm. / J Chem Inf Model 2007, 47:2462-474. CrossRef
  6. Vainio MJ, Johnson MS: McQSAR: A Multiconformational Quantitative Structure activity Relationship Engine Driven by Genetic Algorithms. / J Chem Inf Model 2005, 45:1953-961. CrossRef
  7. Kitchen DB, Decornez H, Furr JR, Bajorath J: Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. / Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004, 3:935-49. CrossRef
  8. Bajorath J: Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening. / Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002, 1:882-94. CrossRef
  9. Walters WP, Stahl MT, Murcko MA: Virtual screening - an overview. / Drug Discov Today 1998, 3:160-78. CrossRef
  10. Sperandio O, Souaille M, Delfaud F, Miteva MA, Villoutreix BO: MED-3DMC: A new tool to generate 3D conformation ensembles of small molecules with a Monte Carlo sampling of the conformational space. / Eur J Med Chem 2008, 44:1405-409. CrossRef
  11. Auer J, Bajorath Jr: Distinguishing between Bioactive and Modeled Compound Conformations through Mining of Emerging Chemical Patterns. / J Chem Inf Model 2008, 48:1747-753. CrossRef
  12. Vengadesan K, Gautham N: A new conformational search technique and its applications. / Curr Sci 2005, 88:1759-770.
  13. Ferguson DM, Raber DJ: A new approach to probing conformational space with molecular mechanics: random incremental pulse search. / J Am Chem Soc 2002, 111:4371-378. CrossRef
  14. Watts KS, Dalal P, Murphy RB, Sherman W, Friesner RA, Shelley JC: ConfGen: A Conformational Search Method for Efficient Generation of Bioactive Conformers. / J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:534-46. CrossRef
  15. Li J, Ehlers T, Sutter J, Varma-O'Brien S, Kirchmair J: CAESAR: A New Conformer Generation Algorithm Based on Recursive Buildup and Local Rotational Symmetry Consideration. / J Chem Inf Model 2007, 47:1923-932. CrossRef
  16. Hawkins PCD, Skillman AG, Warren GL, Ellingson BA, Stahl MT: Conformer Generation with OMEGA: Algorithm and Validation Using High Quality Structures from the Protein Databank and Cambridge Structural Database. / J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:572-84. CrossRef
  17. Lagorce D, Pencheva T, Villoutreix B, Miteva M: DG-AMMOS: A New tool to generate 3D conformation of small molecules using Distance Geometry and Automated Molecular Mechanics Optimization for in silico Screening. / BMC Chem Biol 2009, 9:6. CrossRef
  18. Robert EB, Martin K: Prediction of the folding of short polypeptide segments by uniform conformational sampling. / Biopolymers 1987, 26:137-68. CrossRef
  19. Mark L, Still WC: The multiple minimum problem in molecular modeling. Tree searching internal coordinate conformational space. / J Comput Chem 1988, 9:343-55. CrossRef
  20. OMEGA, OpenEye Science Software Santa Fe, NM, U.S.A; 2004.
  21. Smellie A, Stanton R, Henne R, Teig S: Conformational analysis by intersection: CONAN. / J Comput Chem 2003, 24:10-0. CrossRef
  22. Pavlov T, Todorov M, Stoyanova G, Schmieder P, Aladjov H, Serafimova R, Mekenyan O: Conformational coverage by a genetic algorithm: Saturation of conformational space. / J Chem Inf Model 2007, 47:851-63. CrossRef
  23. Jayaraman C, Martin S, William LJ: Efficient exploration of conformational space using the stochastic search method: application to beta-peptide oligomers. / J Comput Chem 2001, 22:1646-654. CrossRef
  24. Jianhan C, Wonpil I, Charles LB III: Application of torsion angle molecular dynamics for efficient sampling of protein conformations. / J Comput Chem 2005, 26:1565-578. CrossRef
  25. Nicklaus MC, Wang S, Driscoll JS, Milne GWA: Conformational changes of small molecules binding to proteins. / Bioorg Med Chem 1995, 3:411-28. CrossRef
  26. Bostr?m J, Norrby P-O, Liljefors T: Conformational energy penalties of protein-bound ligands. / J Comput Aided-Mol Des 1998, 12:383-83. CrossRef
  27. Perola E, Charifson PS: Conformational Analysis of Drug-Like Molecules Bound to Proteins: An Extensive Study of Ligand Reorganization upon Binding. / J Med Chem 2004, 47:2499-510. CrossRef
  28. Mietzner T, / et al.: A fast and efficient method to generate biologically relevant conformations. / J Comput Aided-Mol Des 1994, 8:583-06. CrossRef
  29. Burkert U, Allinger NL: / Molecular Mechanics. ACS Monograph No 177, Washington, DC, American Chemical Society; 1982.
  30. Andrew S, Steven LT, Peter T: Poling: Promoting conformational variation. / J Comput Chem 1995, 16:171-87. CrossRef
  31. Varma CK: Molecular mechanical force fields. In / Biochemistry 218. Stanford University; 2001.
  32. Gasteiger J, Rudolph C, Sadowski J: Automatic generation of 3D-atomic coordinates for organic molecules. / Tetrahedron Comp Method 1990, 3:537-47. CrossRef
  33. Marco L, Lothar T, Kalyanmoy D, Eckart Z: Combining convergence and diversity in evolutionary multiobjective optimization. / Evol Comput 2002, 10:263-82. CrossRef
  34. Bostr?m J: Reproducing the conformations of protein-bound ligands: A critical evaluation of several popular conformational searching tools. / J Comput Aided-Mol 2001, 15:1137-152. CrossRef
  35. Kirchmair J, Wolber G, Laggner C, Langer T: Comparative Performance Assessment of the Conformational Model Generators Omega and Catalyst: A Large-Scale Survey on the Retrieval of Protein-Bound Ligand Conformations. / J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:1848-861. CrossRef
  36. Kolossváry I, Guida WC: Low Mode Search. An Efficient, Automated Computational Method for Conformational Analysis: Application to Cyclic and Acyclic Alkanes and Cyclic Peptides. / J Am Chem Soc 1996, 118:5011-019. CrossRef
  37. Chang G, Guida WC, Still WC: An internal-coordinate Monte Carlo method for searching conformational space. / J Am Chem Soc 1989, 111:4379-386. CrossRef
  38. Tresadern G, Agrafiotis DK: Conformational Sampling with Stochastic Proximity Embedding and Self-Organizing Superimposition: Establishing Reasonable Parameters for Their Practical Use. / J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:2786-800. CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Fang Bai (1) (2)
  Xiaofeng Liu (3)
  Jiabo Li (5)
  Haoyun Zhang (3)
  Hualiang Jiang (3) (4)
  Xicheng Wang (2)
  Honglin Li (3)
  
  1. Faculty of Chemical, Environmental and Biological Science and Technology, Dalian University of Technology, 116023, Dalian, PR China
  2. Department of Engineering Mechanics, State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial Equipment, Dalian University of Technology, 116023, Dalian, PR China
  3. State Key Laboratory of Bioreactor Engineering & Shanghai Key Laboratory of Chemical Biology, School of Pharmacy, East China University of Science and Technology, 200237, Shanghai, PR China
  5. Accelrys Inc, 10188 Telesis Court, 92121, San Diego, California, USA
  4. Drug Discovery and Design Center, State Key Laboratory of Drug Research, Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 201203, Shanghai, PR China
  
• ISSN：1471-2105

文摘

Background Conformational sampling for small molecules plays an essential role in drug discovery research pipeline. Based on multi-objective evolution algorithm (MOEA), we have developed a conformational generation method called Cyndi in the previous study. In this work, in addition to Tripos force field in the previous version, Cyndi was updated by incorporation of MMFF94 force field to assess the conformational energy more rationally. With two force fields against a larger dataset of 742 bioactive conformations of small ligands extracted from PDB, a comparative analysis was performed between pure force field based method (FFBM) and multiple empirical criteria based method (MECBM) hybrided with different force fields. Results Our analysis reveals that incorporating multiple empirical rules can significantly improve the accuracy of conformational generation. MECBM, which takes both empirical and force field criteria as the objective functions, can reproduce about 54% (within 1? RMSD) of the bioactive conformations in the 742-molecule testset, much higher than that of pure force field method (FFBM, about 37%). On the other hand, MECBM achieved a more complete and efficient sampling of the conformational space because the average size of unique conformations ensemble per molecule is about 6 times larger than that of FFBM, while the time scale for conformational generation is nearly the same as FFBM. Furthermore, as a complementary comparison study between the methods with and without empirical biases, we also tested the performance of the three conformational generation methods in MacroModel in combination with different force fields. Compared with the methods in MacroModel, MECBM is more competitive in retrieving the bioactive conformations in light of accuracy but has much lower computational cost. Conclusions By incorporating different energy terms with several empirical criteria, the MECBM method can produce more reasonable conformational ensemble with high accuracy but approximately the same computational cost in comparison with FFBM method. Our analysis also reveals that the performance of conformational generation is irrelevant to the types of force field adopted in characterization of conformational accessibility. Moreover, post energy minimization is not necessary and may even undermine the diversity of conformational ensemble. All the results guide us to explore more empirical criteria like geometric restraints during the conformational process, which may improve the performance of conformational generation in combination with energetic accessibility, regardless of force field types adopted.