4.8 Article

Testing inhomogeneous solvation theory in structure-based ligand discovery

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1703287114

关键词

water; inhomogeneous solvation theory; ligand discovery; structure-based drug design; docking

资金

  1. US National Institutes of Health [R35GM122481, R01GM100946, F32GM108161]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Binding-site water is often displaced upon ligand recognition, but is commonly neglected in structure-based ligand discovery. Inhomogeneous solvation theory (IST) has become popular for treating this effect, but it has not been tested in controlled experiments at atomic resolution. To do so, we turned to a grid-based version of this method, GIST, readily implemented in molecular docking. Whereas the term only improves docking modestly in retrospective ligand enrichment, it could be added without disrupting performance. We thus turned to prospective docking of large libraries to investigate GIST's impact on ligand discovery, geometry, and water structure in a model cavity site well-suited to exploring these terms. Although top-ranked docked molecules with and without the GIST term often overlapped, many ligands were meaningfully prioritized or deprioritized; some of these were selected for testing. Experimentally, 13/14 molecules prioritized by GIST did bind, whereas none of the molecules that it deprioritized were observed to bind. Nine crystal complexeswere determined. In six, the ligand geometry corresponded to that predicted by GIST, for one of these the pose without the GIST term was wrong, and three crystallographic poses differed fromboth predictions. Notably, in one structure, an ordered water molecule with a high GIST displacement penalty was observed to stay in place. Inclusion of this water-displacement term can substantially improve the hit rates and ligand geometries from docking screens, although the magnitude of its effects can be small and its impact in drug binding sites merits further controlled studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据