Workflows and performances in the ranking prediction of 2016 D3R Grand Challenge 2: lessons learned from a collaborative effort.
Abstract
The 2016 D3R Grand Challenge 2 includes both pose and affinity or ranking predictions. This article is focused exclusively on affinity predictions submitted to the D3R challenge from a collaborative effort of the modeling and informatics group. Our submissions include ranking of 102 ligands covering 4 different chemotypes against the FXR ligand binding domain structure, and the relative binding affinity predictions of the two designated free energy subsets of 15 and 18 compounds. Using all the complex structures prepared in the same way allowed us to cover many types of workflows and compare their performances effectively. We evaluated typical workflows used in our daily structure-based design modeling support, which include docking scores, force field-based scores, QM/MM, MMGBSA, MD-MMGBSA, and MacroModel interaction energy estimations. The best performing methods for the two free energy subsets are discussed. Our results suggest that affinity ranking still remains very challenging; that the knowledge of more structural information does not necessarily yield more accurate predictions; and that visual inspection and human intervention are considerably important for ranking. Knowledge of the mode of action and protein flexibility along with visualization tools that depict polar and hydrophobic maps are very useful for visual inspection. QM/MM-based workflows were found to be powerful in affinity ranking and are encouraged to be applied more often. The standardized input and output enable systematic analysis and support methodology development and improvement for high level blinded predictions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Results from the 2016 D3R Grand Challenge indicate that the use of QM/MM scoring could be a powerful strategy.
“Moreover, the results from the 2016 D3R Grand Challenge indicate that the use of QM/MM scoring could be a powerful strategy (Gao et al., 2018).”
From Empirical scoring functions for structure-based virtual screening: applications, critical aspects, and challenges (2018) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2018
Cites
Lee, C., Yang, W., & Parr, R. G. (1988) · Physical Review B · doi:10.1103/physrevb.37.785 · Cited by 100,874 · see citing works
A new mixing of Hartree–Fock and local density-functional theories
Becke, A. D. (1993) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.464304 · Cited by 16,515 · see citing works
Friesner, R. A., Banks, J. L., Murphy, R. B., Halgren, T. A., Klicic, J. J., Mainz, D. T., Repasky, M. P., Knoll, E. H., Shelley, M., Perry, J. K., et al. (2004) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0306430 · Cited by 10,057 · see citing works
Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking 1 1Edited by F. E. Cohen
Jones, G., Willett, P., Glen, R. C., Leach, A. R., & Taylor, R. (1997) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1996.0897 · Cited by 6,763 · see citing works
Halgren, T. A., Murphy, R. B., Friesner, R. A., Beard, H. S., Frye, L. L., Pollard, W. T., & Banks, J. L. (2004) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm030644s · Cited by 5,280 · see citing works
Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications
Kitchen, D. B., Decornez, H. Y., Furr, J. R., & Bajorath, J. (2004) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd1549 · Cited by 4,245 · see citing works
Warshel, A., & Levitt, M. (1976) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-2836(76)90311-9 · Cited by 3,821 · see citing works
Jakalian, A., Jack, D. B., & Bayly, C. I. (2002) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.10128 · Cited by 3,428 · see citing works
OPLS3: A Force Field Providing Broad Coverage of Drug-like Small Molecules and Proteins.
Harder, E. D., Damm, W., Maple, J., Wu, C., Reboul, M., Xiang, J.-Y., Wang, L.-L., Lupyan, D., Dahlgren, M. K., Knight, J. L., et al. (2016) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00864 · Cited by 2,826 · see citing works
The performance of a family of density functional methods
Johnson, B. G., Gill, P. M. W., & Pople, J. A. (1993) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.464906 · Cited by 1,926 · see citing works
Bochevarov, A. D., Harder, E. D., Hughes, T. F., Greenwood, J. R., Braden, D. A., Philipp, D. M., Rinaldo, D., Halls, M. D., Zhang, J., & Friesner, R. A. (2013) · International Journal of Quantum Chemistry · doi:10.1002/qua.24481 · Cited by 1,821 · see citing works
Vanommeslaeghe, K., Raman, E. P., & MacKerell, A. D. (2012) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci3003649 · Cited by 1,651 · see citing works
Integrated Modeling Program, Applied Chemical Theory (IMPACT)
Banks, J. L., Beard, H. S., Cao, Y., Cho, A. E., Damm, W., Farid, R., Felts, A. K., Halgren, T. A., Mainz, D. T., Maple, J. R., et al. (2005) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.20292 · Cited by 1,498 · see citing works
Wang, L., Wu, Y., Deng, Y., Kim, B., Pierce, L., Krilov, G., Lupyan, D., Robinson, S., Dahlgren, M. K., Greenwood, J., et al. (2015) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja512751q · Cited by 1,313 · see citing works
Wang, R., Lai, L., & Wang, S. (2002) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1023/a:1016357811882 · Cited by 1,185 · see citing works
Tannor, D. J., Marten, B., Murphy, R. B., Friesner, R. A., Sitkoff, D. F., Nicholls, A. O., Honig, B. H., Ringnalda, M. N., & Goddard, W. A. (1994) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja00105a030 · Cited by 1,044 · see citing works
Comparison of Shape-Matching and Docking as Virtual Screening Tools
Hawkins, P. C. D., Skillman, A. G., & Nicholls, A. O. (2006) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0603365 · Cited by 998 · see citing works
Marten, B., Kim, K., Cortis, C. M., Friesner, R. A., Murphy, R. B., Ringnalda, M. N., Sitkoff, D. F., & Honig, B. H. (1996) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jp953087x · Cited by 952 · see citing works
Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking.
Wang, R., Lu, Y., & Wang, S. (2003) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0203783 · Cited by 849 · see citing works
Motifs for molecular recognition exploiting hydrophobic enclosure in protein–ligand binding
Young, T. K., Abel, R., Kim, B., Berne, B. J., & Friesner, R. A. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0610202104 · Cited by 697 · see citing works
Role of the Active-Site Solvent in the Thermodynamics of Factor Xa Ligand Binding
Abel, R., Young, T. K., Farid, R., Berne, B. J., & Friesner, R. A. (2008) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja0771033 · Cited by 682 · see citing works
Kovalenko, A., & Hirata, F. (1999) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.478883 · Cited by 672 · see citing works
Alchemical free energy methods for drug discovery: Progress and challenges
Chodera, J., Mobley, D., Shirts, M., Dixon, R. W., Branson, K., & Pande, V. (2011) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2011.01.011 · Cited by 545 · see citing works
Virtual screening and fast automated docking methods
Schneider, G., & Böhm, H. (2002) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/s1359-6446(01)02091-8 · Cited by 404 · see citing works
Recent Advances in Scaffold Hopping
Hu, Y., Stumpfe, D., & Bajorath, J. (2016) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b01437 · Cited by 364 · see citing works
Self-citationThe molecular modeling toolkit: A new approach to molecular simulations
Hinsen, K. (2000) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-987x(20000130)21:2 · Cited by 347 · see citing works
Structural Basis for Bile Acid Binding and Activation of the Nuclear Receptor FXR
Mi, L.-Z., Devarakonda, S., Harp, J. M., Han, Q., Pellicciari, R., Willson, T. M., Khorasanizadeh, S., & Rastinejad, F. (2003) · Molecular Cell · doi:10.1016/s1097-2765(03)00112-6 · Cited by 315 · see citing works
Classification of Current Scoring Functions
Liu, J., & Wang, R. (2015) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci500731a · Cited by 302 · see citing works
Miller, M. D., Kearsley, S. K., Underwood, D. J., & Sheridan, R. P. (1994) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1007/bf00119865 · Cited by 281 · see citing works
pmx: Automated protein structure and topology generation for alchemical perturbations
Gapsys, V., Michielssens, S., Seeliger, D., & de Groot, B. L. (2014) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.23804 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Three-Dimensional Molecular Theory of Solvation Coupled with Molecular Dynamics in Amber
Luchko, T., Gusarov, S., Roe, D. R., Simmerling, C. L., Case, D. A., Tuszyński, J. A., & Kovalenko, A. (2010) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/ct900460m · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Sauer, J., & Sierka, M. (2000) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/1096-987x(200012)21:16 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on an Updated Benchmark: 1. Compilation of the Test Set
Li, Y., Liu, Z., Li, J., Han, L., Liu, J., Zhao, Z., & Wang, R. (2014) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci500080q · Cited by 214 · see citing works
On Scaffolds and Hopping in Medicinal Chemistry
Brown, N., & Jacoby, E. (2006) · Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.2174/138955706778742768 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Structural plasticity in the oestrogen receptor ligand‐binding domain
Nettles, K. W., Bruning, J. B., Gil, G. A., O'Neill, E., Nowak, J., Hughs, A., Kim, Y., DeSombre, E. R., Dilis, R., Hanson, R. N., et al. (2007) · EMBO Reports · doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400963 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Wan, S., Knapp, B., Wright, D. W., et al. (2015) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00179 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Lee, T., Hu, Y., Sherborne, B. S., Guo, Z., & York, D. M. (2017) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00102 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Self-citationCrespo, A., Scherlis, D. A., Marti, M. A., Ordejón, P., Roitberg, A. E., & Estrin, D. A. (2003) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/jp036236h · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Self-citationKojetin, D. J., & Burris, T. P. (2012) · Molecular Pharmacology · doi:10.1124/mol.112.079285 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Accurate Modeling of Scaffold Hopping Transformations in Drug Discovery.
Wang, L.-L., Deng, Y., Wu, Y., Kim, B., LeBard, D. N., Wandschneider, D., Beachy, M., Friesner, R., & Abel, R. (2017) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00991 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
FESetup: Automating Setup for Alchemical Free Energy Simulations
Loeffler, H. H., Michel, J., & Woods, C. J. (2015) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00368 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
FEW: A workflow tool for free energy calculations of ligand binding
Homeyer, N., & Gohlke, H. (2013) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.23218 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Richter, H. G., Benson, G. M., Bleicher, K., Blum, D., Chaput, E., Clemann, N., Feng, S., Gardès, C., Grether, U., HARTMAN, P. G., et al. (2011) · Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2010.12.123 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Optimization of Gaussian surface calculations and extension to solvent-accessible surface areas
Weiser, J., Shenkin, P. S., & Still, W. C. (1999) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-987x(199905)20:7 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Biggadike, K., Bledsoe, R. K., Coe, D., et al. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0909125106 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Richter, H. G., Benson, G. M., Blum, D., Chaput, E., Feng, S., Gardès, C., Grether, U., HARTMAN, P. G., Kuhn, B., Martin, R. E., et al. (2010) · Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2010.11.039 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Identification of an N-oxide pyridine GW4064 analog as a potent FXR agonist
Feng, S., Yang, M., Zhang, Z., Wang, Z., Hong, D., Richter, H. G., Benson, G. M., Bleicher, K., Grether, U., Martin, R. E., et al. (2009) · Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2009.03.008 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Collaborating to improve the use of free-energy and other quantitative methods in drug discovery
Sherborne, B. S., Shanmugasundaram, V., Cheng, A. C., et al. (2016) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1007/s10822-016-9996-y · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Self-citationRecent Advances toward a General Purpose Linear-Scaling Quantum Force Field
Giese, T. J., Huang, M. S., Chen, H., et al. (2014) · Accounts of Chemical Research · doi:10.1021/ar500103g · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Crespo, A., Rodriguez-Granillo, A., & Lim, V. T. (2017) · Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.2174/1568026617666170707120609 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Self-citationBush, B. L., Bayly, C. I., & Halgren, T. A. (1999) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-987x(19991115)20:14 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Hu, Y., Sherborne, B. S., Lee, T., Case, D. A., York, D. M., & Guo, Z. (2016) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1007/s10822-016-9920-5 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Self-citationJasial, S., Hu, Y., & Bajorath, J. (2016) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00713 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Self-citationNucleic acid reactivity: Challenges for next-generation semiempirical quantum models
Huang, M. S., Giese, T. J., & York, D. M. (2015) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.23933 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Fradera, X., Verras, A., Hu, Y., et al. (2017) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1007/s10822-017-0053-2 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Guedes, I. A., Pereira, F. S. S., & Dardenne, L. E. (2018) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2018.01089 · Cited by 331 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gao, Y.-D., Hu, Y., Crespo, A., Wang, D., Armacost, K. A., Fells, J. I., Fradera, X., Wang, H., Wang, H., Sherborne, B., Verras, A., & Peng, Z.
- Affiliations
- Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gao, Ying-Duo
- Hu, Yuan
- Crespo, Alejandro
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design
- Published
- 2017-10-06
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 129-142
- ISSN
- 0920-654X (ISSN-L)
- 1573-4951
- OpenAlex
- W2760826988
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 0.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Ministry of Earth Sciences
- Ministry of Education, India
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
- Keywords
- ligand ranking, structure-based drug design, QM/MM, MM-GBSA, docking scores, free energy calculation, protein flexibility
- MeSH terms
- Receptor, Farnesoid X-Activated, Binding Sites, Humans, Ligands, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Spiro Compounds, Sulfonamides, Thermodynamics, Drug Design, Computer-Aided Design, Receptors, Cytoplasmic and Nuclear, Databases, Protein, Drug Discovery, Workflow, Molecular Docking Simulation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review