Cargando…

Comparative assessment of strategies to identify similar ligand-binding pockets in proteins

BACKGROUND: Detecting similar ligand-binding sites in globally unrelated proteins has a wide range of applications in modern drug discovery, including drug repurposing, the prediction of side effects, and drug-target interactions. Although a number of techniques to compare binding pockets have been...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Govindaraj, Rajiv Gandhi, Brylinski, Michal
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5845264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29523085
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-018-2109-2
_version_ 1783305392658317312
author Govindaraj, Rajiv Gandhi
Brylinski, Michal
author_facet Govindaraj, Rajiv Gandhi
Brylinski, Michal
author_sort Govindaraj, Rajiv Gandhi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Detecting similar ligand-binding sites in globally unrelated proteins has a wide range of applications in modern drug discovery, including drug repurposing, the prediction of side effects, and drug-target interactions. Although a number of techniques to compare binding pockets have been developed, this problem still poses significant challenges. RESULTS: We evaluate the performance of three algorithms to calculate similarities between ligand-binding sites, APoc, SiteEngine, and G-LoSA. Our assessment considers not only the capabilities to identify similar pockets and to construct accurate local alignments, but also the dependence of these alignments on the sequence order. We point out certain drawbacks of previously compiled datasets, such as the inclusion of structurally similar proteins, leading to an overestimated performance. To address these issues, a rigorous procedure to prepare unbiased, high-quality benchmarking sets is proposed. Further, we conduct a comparative assessment of techniques directly aligning binding pockets to indirect strategies employing structure-based virtual screening with AutoDock Vina and rDock. CONCLUSIONS: Thorough benchmarks reveal that G-LoSA offers a fairly robust overall performance, whereas the accuracy of APoc and SiteEngine is satisfactory only against easy datasets. Moreover, combining various algorithms into a meta-predictor improves the performance of existing methods to detect similar binding sites in unrelated proteins by 5–10%. All data reported in this paper are freely available at https://osf.io/6ngbs/.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5845264
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58452642018-03-19 Comparative assessment of strategies to identify similar ligand-binding pockets in proteins Govindaraj, Rajiv Gandhi Brylinski, Michal BMC Bioinformatics Research Article BACKGROUND: Detecting similar ligand-binding sites in globally unrelated proteins has a wide range of applications in modern drug discovery, including drug repurposing, the prediction of side effects, and drug-target interactions. Although a number of techniques to compare binding pockets have been developed, this problem still poses significant challenges. RESULTS: We evaluate the performance of three algorithms to calculate similarities between ligand-binding sites, APoc, SiteEngine, and G-LoSA. Our assessment considers not only the capabilities to identify similar pockets and to construct accurate local alignments, but also the dependence of these alignments on the sequence order. We point out certain drawbacks of previously compiled datasets, such as the inclusion of structurally similar proteins, leading to an overestimated performance. To address these issues, a rigorous procedure to prepare unbiased, high-quality benchmarking sets is proposed. Further, we conduct a comparative assessment of techniques directly aligning binding pockets to indirect strategies employing structure-based virtual screening with AutoDock Vina and rDock. CONCLUSIONS: Thorough benchmarks reveal that G-LoSA offers a fairly robust overall performance, whereas the accuracy of APoc and SiteEngine is satisfactory only against easy datasets. Moreover, combining various algorithms into a meta-predictor improves the performance of existing methods to detect similar binding sites in unrelated proteins by 5–10%. All data reported in this paper are freely available at https://osf.io/6ngbs/. BioMed Central 2018-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5845264/ /pubmed/29523085 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-018-2109-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Govindaraj, Rajiv Gandhi
Brylinski, Michal
Comparative assessment of strategies to identify similar ligand-binding pockets in proteins
title Comparative assessment of strategies to identify similar ligand-binding pockets in proteins
title_full Comparative assessment of strategies to identify similar ligand-binding pockets in proteins
title_fullStr Comparative assessment of strategies to identify similar ligand-binding pockets in proteins
title_full_unstemmed Comparative assessment of strategies to identify similar ligand-binding pockets in proteins
title_short Comparative assessment of strategies to identify similar ligand-binding pockets in proteins
title_sort comparative assessment of strategies to identify similar ligand-binding pockets in proteins
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5845264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29523085
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-018-2109-2
work_keys_str_mv AT govindarajrajivgandhi comparativeassessmentofstrategiestoidentifysimilarligandbindingpocketsinproteins
AT brylinskimichal comparativeassessmentofstrategiestoidentifysimilarligandbindingpocketsinproteins