4.4 Article

Validation of an empirical RNA-ligand scoring function for fast flexible docking using RiboDock®

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-AIDED MOLECULAR DESIGN
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 189-208

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/B:JCAM.0000035199.48747.1e

关键词

bacterial A-site; cavity detection; enrichment factor; guanidine; high throughput docking; HIV-1 TAR; RiboDock (R); RNA aptamer; structure-based drug design; virtual screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the design and validation of a fast empirical function for scoring RNA-ligand interactions, and describe its implementation within RiboDock(R), a virtual screening system for automated flexible docking. Building on well-known protein-ligand scoring function foundations, features were added to describe the interactions of common RNA-binding functional groups that were not handled adequately by conventional terms, to disfavour non-complementary polar contacts, and to control non-specific charged interactions. The results of validation experiments against known structures of RNA-ligand complexes compare favourably with previously reported methods. Binding modes were well predicted in most cases and good discrimination was achieved between native and non-native ligands for each binding site, and between native and non-native binding sites for each ligand. Further evidence of the ability of the method to identify true RNA binders is provided by compound selection ('enrichment factor') experiments based around a series of HIV-1 TAR RNA-binding ligands. Significant enrichment in true binders was achieved amongst high scoring docking hits, even when selection was from a library of structurally related, positively charged molecules. Coupled with a semi-automated cavity detection algorithm for identification of putative ligand binding sites, also described here, the method is suitable for the screening of very large databases of molecules against RNA and RNA-protein interfaces, such as those presented by the bacterial ribosome.

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

4.4
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