Cited by 249Computational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Structure and DynamicsAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

A model binding site for testing scoring functions in molecular docking.

Wei, Binqing Q., Baase, Walter A., Weaver, Larry H., Matthews, Brian W., Shoichet, Brian K.·2002·Journal of Molecular Biology

Abstract

Prediction of interaction energies between ligands and their receptors remains a major challenge for structure-based inhibitor discovery. Much effort has been devoted to developing scoring schemes that can successfully rank the affinities of a diverse set of possible ligands to a binding site for which the structure is known. To test these scoring functions, well-characterized experimental systems can be very useful. Here, mutation-created binding sites in T4 lysozyme were used to investigate how the quality of atomic charges and solvation energies affects molecular docking. Atomic charges and solvation energies were calculated for 172,118 molecules in the Available Chemicals Directory using a semi-empirical quantum mechanical approach by the program AMSOL. The database was first screened against the apolar cavity site created by the mutation Leu99Ala (L99A). Compared to the electronegativity-based charges that are widely used, the new charges and desolvation energies improved ranking of known apolar ligands, and better distinguished them from more polar isosteres that are not observed to bind. To investigate whether the new charges had predictive value, the non-polar residue Met102, which forms part of the binding site, was changed to the polar residue glutamine. The structure of the resulting Leu99Ala and Met102Gln double mutant of T4 lysozyme (L99A/M102Q) was determined and the docking calculation was repeated for the new site. Seven representative polar molecules that preferentially docked to the polar versus the apolar binding site were tested experimentally. All seven bind to the polar cavity (L99A/M102Q) but do not detectably bind to the apolar cavity (L99A). Five ligand-bound structures of L99A/M102Q were determined by X-ray crystallography. Docking predictions corresponded to the crystallographic results to within 0.4A RMSD. Improved treatment of partial atomic charges and desolvation energies in database docking appears feasible and leads to better distinction of true ligands. Simple model binding sites, such as L99A and its more polar variants, may find broad use in the development and testing of docking algorithms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-2836(02)00777-5

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The development of scoring functions adapted for flexible receptor docking is crucial to achieve real improvements in pose and affinity prediction.

    “In this context, the development of scoring functions adapted for flexible receptor docking is crucial to achieve real improvements in pose and affinity prediction (Totrov and Abagyan, 1997; Wei et al., 2002; Fischer et al., 2014; Ravindranath et al., 2015; Lam et al., 2017; Kong et al., 2018).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wei, B. Q., Baase, W. A., Weaver, L. H., Matthews, B. W., & Shoichet, B. K.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Matthews, Brian W.
  • Shoichet, Brian K.
Venue
Journal of Molecular Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-09
Volume
322
Issue
2
Pages
339-355
ISSN
0022-2836 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1980285986
Cited by
237
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 15
FWCI
8.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Molecular Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Northwestern University
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM-21967, GM59957, R01GM059957, R01GM021967)
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
molecular docking, scoring functions, T4 lysozyme, atomic charges, desolvation energy, solvation energy, ligand binding affinity, partial atomic charges, ligand ranking
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Binding Sites, Calorimetry, Ligands, Models, Molecular, Muramidase, Mutation, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Software, Databases, Factual, Bacteriophage T4, Crystallography, X-Ray, Amino Acid Substitution, Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions

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