61
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Molecular Docking and Structure-Based Drug Design Strategies

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Pharmaceutical research has successfully incorporated a wealth of molecular modeling methods, within a variety of drug discovery programs, to study complex biological and chemical systems. The integration of computational and experimental strategies has been of great value in the identification and development of novel promising compounds. Broadly used in modern drug design, molecular docking methods explore the ligand conformations adopted within the binding sites of macromolecular targets. This approach also estimates the ligand-receptor binding free energy by evaluating critical phenomena involved in the intermolecular recognition process. Today, as a variety of docking algorithms are available, an understanding of the advantages and limitations of each method is of fundamental importance in the development of effective strategies and the generation of relevant results. The purpose of this review is to examine current molecular docking strategies used in drug discovery and medicinal chemistry, exploring the advances in the field and the role played by the integration of structure- and ligand-based methods.

          Related collections

          Most cited references184

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD.

          The Chemscore function was implemented as a scoring function for the protein-ligand docking program GOLD, and its performance compared to the original Goldscore function and two consensus docking protocols, "Goldscore-CS" and "Chemscore-GS," in terms of docking accuracy, prediction of binding affinities, and speed. In the "Goldscore-CS" protocol, dockings produced with the Goldscore function are scored and ranked with the Chemscore function; in the "Chemscore-GS" protocol, dockings produced with the Chemscore function are scored and ranked with the Goldscore function. Comparisons were made for a "clean" set of 224 protein-ligand complexes, and for two subsets of this set, one for which the ligands are "drug-like," the other for which they are "fragment-like." For "drug-like" and "fragment-like" ligands, the docking accuracies obtained with Chemscore and Goldscore functions are similar. For larger ligands, Goldscore gives superior results. Docking with the Chemscore function is up to three times faster than docking with the Goldscore function. Both combined docking protocols give significant improvements in docking accuracy over the use of the Goldscore or Chemscore function alone. "Goldscore-CS" gives success rates of up to 81% (top-ranked GOLD solution within 2.0 A of the experimental binding mode) for the "clean list," but at the cost of long search times. For most virtual screening applications, "Chemscore-GS" seems optimal; search settings that give docking speeds of around 0.25-1.3 min/compound have success rates of about 78% for "drug-like" compounds and 85% for "fragment-like" compounds. In terms of producing binding energy estimates, the Goldscore function appears to perform better than the Chemscore function and the two consensus protocols, particularly for faster search settings. Even at docking speeds of around 1-2 min/compound, the Goldscore function predicts binding energies with a standard deviation of approximately 10.5 kJ/mol. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm.

            We present an automatic method for docking organic ligands into protein binding sites. The method can be used in the design process of specific protein ligands. It combines an appropriate model of the physico-chemical properties of the docked molecules with efficient methods for sampling the conformational space of the ligand. If the ligand is flexible, it can adopt a large variety of different conformations. Each such minimum in conformational space presents a potential candidate for the conformation of the ligand in the complexed state. Our docking method samples the conformation space of the ligand on the basis of a discrete model and uses a tree-search technique for placing the ligand incrementally into the active site. For placing the first fragment of the ligand into the protein, we use hashing techniques adapted from computer vision. The incremental construction algorithm is based on a greedy strategy combined with efficient methods for overlap detection and for the search of new interactions. We present results on 19 complexes of which the binding geometry has been crystallographically determined. All considered ligands are docked in at most three minutes on a current workstation. The experimentally observed binding mode of the ligand is reproduced with 0.5 to 1.2 A rms deviation. It is almost always found among the highest-ranking conformations computed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              RASMOL: biomolecular graphics for all

              R Sayle (1995)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Molecules
                Molecules
                molecules
                Molecules
                MDPI
                1420-3049
                22 July 2015
                July 2015
                : 20
                : 7
                : 13384-13421
                Affiliations
                Laboratório de Química Medicinal e Computacional, Centro de Pesquisa e Inovação em Biodiversidade e Fármacos, Instituto de Física de São Carlos, Universidade de São Paulo, Av. João Dagnone 1100, São Carlos-SP 13563-120, Brazil; E-Mails: rnsantos@ 123456ursa.ifsc.usp.br (R.N.S.); oliva@ 123456ifsc.usp.br (G.O.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mails: leonardo@ 123456ifsc.usp.br (L.G.F.); aandrico@ 123456ifsc.usp.br (A.D.A.); Tel.: +55-163-373-8095 (A.D.A.); Fax: +55-163-373-9881 (A.D.A.).
                Article
                molecules-20-13384
                10.3390/molecules200713384
                6332083
                26205061
                d7da88ba-8769-4263-b402-d2a135c2bd04
                © 2015 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 13 May 2015
                : 20 July 2015
                Categories
                Review

                molecular modeling,drug discovery,molecular target,molecular interaction,pharmacophore,virtual screening,sbdd,sbvs

                Comments

                Comment on this article