Cargando…

Evaluation of Docking Machine Learning and Molecular Dynamics Methodologies for DNA-Ligand Systems

DNA is a molecular target for the treatment of several diseases, including cancer, but there are few docking methodologies exploring the interactions between nucleic acids with DNA intercalating agents. Different docking methodologies, such as AutoDock Vina, DOCK 6, and Consensus, implemented into M...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Oliveira, Tiago Alves, Medaglia, Lucas Rolim, Maia, Eduardo Habib Bechelane, Assis, Letícia Cristina, de Carvalho, Paulo Batista, da Silva, Alisson Marques, Taranto, Alex Gutterres
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8874395/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35215245
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ph15020132
_version_ 1784657678148042752
author de Oliveira, Tiago Alves
Medaglia, Lucas Rolim
Maia, Eduardo Habib Bechelane
Assis, Letícia Cristina
de Carvalho, Paulo Batista
da Silva, Alisson Marques
Taranto, Alex Gutterres
author_facet de Oliveira, Tiago Alves
Medaglia, Lucas Rolim
Maia, Eduardo Habib Bechelane
Assis, Letícia Cristina
de Carvalho, Paulo Batista
da Silva, Alisson Marques
Taranto, Alex Gutterres
author_sort de Oliveira, Tiago Alves
collection PubMed
description DNA is a molecular target for the treatment of several diseases, including cancer, but there are few docking methodologies exploring the interactions between nucleic acids with DNA intercalating agents. Different docking methodologies, such as AutoDock Vina, DOCK 6, and Consensus, implemented into Molecular Architect (MolAr), were evaluated for their ability to analyze those interactions, considering visual inspection, redocking, and ROC curve. Ligands were refined by Parametric Method 7 (PM7), and ligands and decoys were docked into the minor DNA groove (PDB code: 1VZK). As a result, the area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) was 0.98, 0.88, and 0.99 for AutoDock Vina, DOCK 6, and Consensus methodologies, respectively. In addition, we proposed a machine learning model to determine the experimental ∆T(m) value, which found a 0.84 R(2) score. Finally, the selected ligands mono imidazole lexitropsin (42), netropsin (45), and N,N′-(1H-pyrrole-2,5-diyldi-4,1-phenylene)dibenzenecarboximidamide (51) were submitted to Molecular Dynamic Simulations (MD) through NAMD software to evaluate their equilibrium binding pose into the groove. In conclusion, the use of MolAr improves the docking results obtained with other methodologies, is a suitable methodology to use in the DNA system and was proven to be a valuable tool to estimate the ∆T(m) experimental values of DNA intercalating agents.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8874395
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88743952022-02-26 Evaluation of Docking Machine Learning and Molecular Dynamics Methodologies for DNA-Ligand Systems de Oliveira, Tiago Alves Medaglia, Lucas Rolim Maia, Eduardo Habib Bechelane Assis, Letícia Cristina de Carvalho, Paulo Batista da Silva, Alisson Marques Taranto, Alex Gutterres Pharmaceuticals (Basel) Article DNA is a molecular target for the treatment of several diseases, including cancer, but there are few docking methodologies exploring the interactions between nucleic acids with DNA intercalating agents. Different docking methodologies, such as AutoDock Vina, DOCK 6, and Consensus, implemented into Molecular Architect (MolAr), were evaluated for their ability to analyze those interactions, considering visual inspection, redocking, and ROC curve. Ligands were refined by Parametric Method 7 (PM7), and ligands and decoys were docked into the minor DNA groove (PDB code: 1VZK). As a result, the area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) was 0.98, 0.88, and 0.99 for AutoDock Vina, DOCK 6, and Consensus methodologies, respectively. In addition, we proposed a machine learning model to determine the experimental ∆T(m) value, which found a 0.84 R(2) score. Finally, the selected ligands mono imidazole lexitropsin (42), netropsin (45), and N,N′-(1H-pyrrole-2,5-diyldi-4,1-phenylene)dibenzenecarboximidamide (51) were submitted to Molecular Dynamic Simulations (MD) through NAMD software to evaluate their equilibrium binding pose into the groove. In conclusion, the use of MolAr improves the docking results obtained with other methodologies, is a suitable methodology to use in the DNA system and was proven to be a valuable tool to estimate the ∆T(m) experimental values of DNA intercalating agents. MDPI 2022-01-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8874395/ /pubmed/35215245 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ph15020132 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
de Oliveira, Tiago Alves
Medaglia, Lucas Rolim
Maia, Eduardo Habib Bechelane
Assis, Letícia Cristina
de Carvalho, Paulo Batista
da Silva, Alisson Marques
Taranto, Alex Gutterres
Evaluation of Docking Machine Learning and Molecular Dynamics Methodologies for DNA-Ligand Systems
title Evaluation of Docking Machine Learning and Molecular Dynamics Methodologies for DNA-Ligand Systems
title_full Evaluation of Docking Machine Learning and Molecular Dynamics Methodologies for DNA-Ligand Systems
title_fullStr Evaluation of Docking Machine Learning and Molecular Dynamics Methodologies for DNA-Ligand Systems
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Docking Machine Learning and Molecular Dynamics Methodologies for DNA-Ligand Systems
title_short Evaluation of Docking Machine Learning and Molecular Dynamics Methodologies for DNA-Ligand Systems
title_sort evaluation of docking machine learning and molecular dynamics methodologies for dna-ligand systems
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8874395/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35215245
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ph15020132
work_keys_str_mv AT deoliveiratiagoalves evaluationofdockingmachinelearningandmoleculardynamicsmethodologiesfordnaligandsystems
AT medaglialucasrolim evaluationofdockingmachinelearningandmoleculardynamicsmethodologiesfordnaligandsystems
AT maiaeduardohabibbechelane evaluationofdockingmachinelearningandmoleculardynamicsmethodologiesfordnaligandsystems
AT assisleticiacristina evaluationofdockingmachinelearningandmoleculardynamicsmethodologiesfordnaligandsystems
AT decarvalhopaulobatista evaluationofdockingmachinelearningandmoleculardynamicsmethodologiesfordnaligandsystems
AT dasilvaalissonmarques evaluationofdockingmachinelearningandmoleculardynamicsmethodologiesfordnaligandsystems
AT tarantoalexgutterres evaluationofdockingmachinelearningandmoleculardynamicsmethodologiesfordnaligandsystems