Docking and Scoring in Drug Discovery

F. Spyrakis, P. Cozzini, G. Kellogg
{"title":"Docking and Scoring in Drug Discovery","authors":"F. Spyrakis, P. Cozzini, G. Kellogg","doi":"10.1002/0471266949.BMC140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The rational development of new lead compounds requires good understanding of the relationship between all the actors involved in a binding event (protein, ligand, water, metal ions, cofactors, etc.). Computational methods attempt to reproduce and predict the behavior of nature even though this can be very difficult. The docking/scoring paradigm is probably the most widespread and potentially useful computer-aided technique used in the discovery of new drugs. This paradigm can be analyzed as the sum of a “geometric” problem, that is, the implementation of algorithms to find the possible positions of a ligand in a receptor cavity, and a “chemistry” problem, that is, the evaluation of the solution list using good and realistic energy functions. In this chapter, we deal with the panorama of docking and scoring approaches and the related software packages. After a general introduction, some basic principles about the goodness and limits of experimental data used for computational simulations are described. Then an exhaustive examination of the most common docking methods and packages is carried out followed by an analysis of scoring functions developed to date, including the evolving consensus scoring approach. Next, several problems with the paradigm and their state-of-the-art partial solutions are discussed, including active site water, ionization states, tautomerization, flexibility, and the probability of more than one “correct” solution. Particular attention is paid for the upside and the downside of the problem in a short user guide for the docking and scoring beginner, followed by a conclusions and outlook. \n \n \nKeywords: \n \ncomputational chemistry; \nfree energy; \nligand docking; \nmodeling; \nscoring functions","PeriodicalId":9514,"journal":{"name":"Burger's Medicinal Chemistry and Drug Discovery","volume":"63 1","pages":"601-684"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Burger's Medicinal Chemistry and Drug Discovery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/0471266949.BMC140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

The rational development of new lead compounds requires good understanding of the relationship between all the actors involved in a binding event (protein, ligand, water, metal ions, cofactors, etc.). Computational methods attempt to reproduce and predict the behavior of nature even though this can be very difficult. The docking/scoring paradigm is probably the most widespread and potentially useful computer-aided technique used in the discovery of new drugs. This paradigm can be analyzed as the sum of a “geometric” problem, that is, the implementation of algorithms to find the possible positions of a ligand in a receptor cavity, and a “chemistry” problem, that is, the evaluation of the solution list using good and realistic energy functions. In this chapter, we deal with the panorama of docking and scoring approaches and the related software packages. After a general introduction, some basic principles about the goodness and limits of experimental data used for computational simulations are described. Then an exhaustive examination of the most common docking methods and packages is carried out followed by an analysis of scoring functions developed to date, including the evolving consensus scoring approach. Next, several problems with the paradigm and their state-of-the-art partial solutions are discussed, including active site water, ionization states, tautomerization, flexibility, and the probability of more than one “correct” solution. Particular attention is paid for the upside and the downside of the problem in a short user guide for the docking and scoring beginner, followed by a conclusions and outlook. Keywords: computational chemistry; free energy; ligand docking; modeling; scoring functions
药物发现中的对接与评分
新先导化合物的合理开发需要很好地理解参与结合事件的所有参与者(蛋白质、配体、水、金属离子、辅因子等)之间的关系。计算方法试图重现和预测自然的行为,尽管这可能非常困难。对接/评分范式可能是在新药发现中使用的最广泛和最有用的计算机辅助技术。这个范例可以被分析为一个“几何”问题的总和,即实现寻找配体在受体腔中可能位置的算法,以及一个“化学”问题,即使用良好和现实的能量函数对解列表进行评估。在本章中,我们讨论了对接和评分方法的全景以及相关的软件包。在一般介绍之后,描述了用于计算模拟的实验数据的优点和局限性的一些基本原则。然后对最常见的对接方法和包进行详尽的检查,然后对迄今为止开发的评分功能进行分析,包括不断发展的共识评分方法。接下来,讨论了范例的几个问题及其最先进的部分解决方案,包括活性位点水、电离态、互变异构、灵活性和多个“正确”解决方案的概率。在对接和评分初学者的简短用户指南中,特别注意了问题的优点和缺点,然后是结论和展望。关键词:计算化学;自由能;配体对接;建模;得分函数
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信