Cargando…

Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods

Prioritizing molecules for synthesis is a key role of computational methods within medicinal chemistry. Multiple tools exist for ranking molecules, from the cheap and popular molecular docking methods to more computationally expensive molecular‐dynamics (MD)‐based methods. It is often questioned whe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Breznik, Marko, Ge, Yunhui, Bluck, Joseph P., Briem, Hans, Hahn, David F., Christ, Clara D., Mortier, Jérémie, Mobley, David L., Meier, Katharina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9868080/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36240514
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cmdc.202200425
_version_ 1784876463191752704
author Breznik, Marko
Ge, Yunhui
Bluck, Joseph P.
Briem, Hans
Hahn, David F.
Christ, Clara D.
Mortier, Jérémie
Mobley, David L.
Meier, Katharina
author_facet Breznik, Marko
Ge, Yunhui
Bluck, Joseph P.
Briem, Hans
Hahn, David F.
Christ, Clara D.
Mortier, Jérémie
Mobley, David L.
Meier, Katharina
author_sort Breznik, Marko
collection PubMed
description Prioritizing molecules for synthesis is a key role of computational methods within medicinal chemistry. Multiple tools exist for ranking molecules, from the cheap and popular molecular docking methods to more computationally expensive molecular‐dynamics (MD)‐based methods. It is often questioned whether the accuracy of the more rigorous methods justifies the higher computational cost and associated calculation time. Here, we compared the performance on ranking the binding of small molecules for seven scoring functions from five docking programs, one end‐point method (MM/GBSA), and two MD‐based free energy methods (PMX, FEP+). We investigated 16 pharmaceutically relevant targets with a total of 423 known binders. The performance of docking methods for ligand ranking was strongly system dependent. We observed that MD‐based methods predominantly outperformed docking algorithms and MM/GBSA calculations. Based on our results, we recommend the application of MD‐based free energy methods for prioritization of molecules for synthesis in lead optimization, whenever feasible.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9868080
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98680802023-04-14 Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods Breznik, Marko Ge, Yunhui Bluck, Joseph P. Briem, Hans Hahn, David F. Christ, Clara D. Mortier, Jérémie Mobley, David L. Meier, Katharina ChemMedChem Research Articles Prioritizing molecules for synthesis is a key role of computational methods within medicinal chemistry. Multiple tools exist for ranking molecules, from the cheap and popular molecular docking methods to more computationally expensive molecular‐dynamics (MD)‐based methods. It is often questioned whether the accuracy of the more rigorous methods justifies the higher computational cost and associated calculation time. Here, we compared the performance on ranking the binding of small molecules for seven scoring functions from five docking programs, one end‐point method (MM/GBSA), and two MD‐based free energy methods (PMX, FEP+). We investigated 16 pharmaceutically relevant targets with a total of 423 known binders. The performance of docking methods for ligand ranking was strongly system dependent. We observed that MD‐based methods predominantly outperformed docking algorithms and MM/GBSA calculations. Based on our results, we recommend the application of MD‐based free energy methods for prioritization of molecules for synthesis in lead optimization, whenever feasible. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-11-29 2023-01-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9868080/ /pubmed/36240514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cmdc.202200425 Text en © 2022 Bayer AG and The Authors. ChemMedChem published by Wiley-VCH GmbH https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Breznik, Marko
Ge, Yunhui
Bluck, Joseph P.
Briem, Hans
Hahn, David F.
Christ, Clara D.
Mortier, Jérémie
Mobley, David L.
Meier, Katharina
Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods
title Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods
title_full Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods
title_fullStr Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods
title_full_unstemmed Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods
title_short Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in‐silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods
title_sort prioritizing small sets of molecules for synthesis through in‐silico tools: a comparison of common ranking methods
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9868080/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36240514
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cmdc.202200425
work_keys_str_mv AT breznikmarko prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods
AT geyunhui prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods
AT bluckjosephp prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods
AT briemhans prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods
AT hahndavidf prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods
AT christclarad prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods
AT mortierjeremie prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods
AT mobleydavidl prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods
AT meierkatharina prioritizingsmallsetsofmoleculesforsynthesisthroughinsilicotoolsacomparisonofcommonrankingmethods