Cargando…

Applying DEKOIS 2.0 in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of preparation procedures and score normalization

BACKGROUND: Structure-based virtual screening techniques can help to identify new lead structures and complement other screening approaches in drug discovery. Prior to docking, the data (protein crystal structures and ligands) should be prepared with great attention to molecular and chemical details...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ibrahim, Tamer M, Bauer, Matthias R, Boeckler, Frank M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4450982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26034510
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13321-015-0074-6
_version_ 1782374077887938560
author Ibrahim, Tamer M
Bauer, Matthias R
Boeckler, Frank M
author_facet Ibrahim, Tamer M
Bauer, Matthias R
Boeckler, Frank M
author_sort Ibrahim, Tamer M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Structure-based virtual screening techniques can help to identify new lead structures and complement other screening approaches in drug discovery. Prior to docking, the data (protein crystal structures and ligands) should be prepared with great attention to molecular and chemical details. RESULTS: Using a subset of 18 diverse targets from the recently introduced DEKOIS 2.0 benchmark set library, we found differences in the virtual screening performance of two popular docking tools (GOLD and Glide) when employing two different commercial packages (e.g. MOE and Maestro) for preparing input data. We systematically investigated the possible factors that can be responsible for the found differences in selected sets. For the Angiotensin-I-converting enzyme dataset, preparation of the bioactive molecules clearly exerted the highest influence on VS performance compared to preparation of the decoys or the target structure. The major contributing factors were different protonation states, molecular flexibility, and differences in the input conformation (particularly for cyclic moieties) of bioactives. In addition, score normalization strategies eliminated the biased docking scores shown by GOLD (ChemPLP) for the larger bioactives and produced a better performance. Generalizing these normalization strategies on the 18 DEKOIS 2.0 sets, improved the performances for the majority of GOLD (ChemPLP) docking, while it showed detrimental performances for the majority of Glide (SP) docking. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we exemplify herein possible issues particularly during the preparation stage of molecular data and demonstrate to which extent these issues can cause perturbations in the virtual screening performance. We provide insights into what problems can occur and should be avoided, when generating benchmarks to characterize the virtual screening performance. Particularly, careful selection of an appropriate molecular preparation setup for the bioactive set and the use of score normalization for docking with GOLD (ChemPLP) appear to have a great importance for the screening performance. For virtual screening campaigns, we recommend to invest time and effort into including alternative preparation workflows into the generation of the master library, even at the cost of including multiple representations of each molecule. [Figure: see text] ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13321-015-0074-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4450982
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44509822015-06-02 Applying DEKOIS 2.0 in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of preparation procedures and score normalization Ibrahim, Tamer M Bauer, Matthias R Boeckler, Frank M J Cheminform Research Article BACKGROUND: Structure-based virtual screening techniques can help to identify new lead structures and complement other screening approaches in drug discovery. Prior to docking, the data (protein crystal structures and ligands) should be prepared with great attention to molecular and chemical details. RESULTS: Using a subset of 18 diverse targets from the recently introduced DEKOIS 2.0 benchmark set library, we found differences in the virtual screening performance of two popular docking tools (GOLD and Glide) when employing two different commercial packages (e.g. MOE and Maestro) for preparing input data. We systematically investigated the possible factors that can be responsible for the found differences in selected sets. For the Angiotensin-I-converting enzyme dataset, preparation of the bioactive molecules clearly exerted the highest influence on VS performance compared to preparation of the decoys or the target structure. The major contributing factors were different protonation states, molecular flexibility, and differences in the input conformation (particularly for cyclic moieties) of bioactives. In addition, score normalization strategies eliminated the biased docking scores shown by GOLD (ChemPLP) for the larger bioactives and produced a better performance. Generalizing these normalization strategies on the 18 DEKOIS 2.0 sets, improved the performances for the majority of GOLD (ChemPLP) docking, while it showed detrimental performances for the majority of Glide (SP) docking. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we exemplify herein possible issues particularly during the preparation stage of molecular data and demonstrate to which extent these issues can cause perturbations in the virtual screening performance. We provide insights into what problems can occur and should be avoided, when generating benchmarks to characterize the virtual screening performance. Particularly, careful selection of an appropriate molecular preparation setup for the bioactive set and the use of score normalization for docking with GOLD (ChemPLP) appear to have a great importance for the screening performance. For virtual screening campaigns, we recommend to invest time and effort into including alternative preparation workflows into the generation of the master library, even at the cost of including multiple representations of each molecule. [Figure: see text] ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13321-015-0074-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2015-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4450982/ /pubmed/26034510 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13321-015-0074-6 Text en © Ibrahim et al.; licensee Springer. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ibrahim, Tamer M
Bauer, Matthias R
Boeckler, Frank M
Applying DEKOIS 2.0 in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of preparation procedures and score normalization
title Applying DEKOIS 2.0 in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of preparation procedures and score normalization
title_full Applying DEKOIS 2.0 in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of preparation procedures and score normalization
title_fullStr Applying DEKOIS 2.0 in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of preparation procedures and score normalization
title_full_unstemmed Applying DEKOIS 2.0 in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of preparation procedures and score normalization
title_short Applying DEKOIS 2.0 in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of preparation procedures and score normalization
title_sort applying dekois 2.0 in structure-based virtual screening to probe the impact of preparation procedures and score normalization
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4450982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26034510
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13321-015-0074-6
work_keys_str_mv AT ibrahimtamerm applyingdekois20instructurebasedvirtualscreeningtoprobetheimpactofpreparationproceduresandscorenormalization
AT bauermatthiasr applyingdekois20instructurebasedvirtualscreeningtoprobetheimpactofpreparationproceduresandscorenormalization
AT boecklerfrankm applyingdekois20instructurebasedvirtualscreeningtoprobetheimpactofpreparationproceduresandscorenormalization