This article is part of the supplement: 7th German Conference on Chemoinformatics: 25 CIC-Workshop

Open Access Poster presentation

The assessment of computationally derived protein ensembles in protein-ligand docking

Barbara Sander1*, Oliver Korb2, Jason Cole2 and Jonathan W Essex1

Author Affiliations

1 School of Chemistry, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

2 Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre, 12 Union Road, Cambridge, CB2 1EZ, UK

For all author emails, please log on.

Journal of Cheminformatics 2012, 4(Suppl 1):P34  doi:10.1186/1758-2946-4-S1-P34


The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.jcheminf.com/content/4/S1/P34


Published:1 May 2012

© 2012 Sander et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Poster presentation

The inclusion of receptor flexibility in protein-ligand docking experiments has become a major research interest in drug discovery [1,2]. One of the possible methods applied is the use of multiple discrete protein conformations, so called ensemble docking [3,4]. With computational techniques like Molecular Dynamics (MD) a large number of different conformations can be generated, not all of which can or should be included in the docking or virtual screening process [5]. The question arises if and how suitable protein conformations can be selected systematically a priori based on quantifiable conformational features.

For neuraminidase and cyclin-dependent kinase II (CDK2), snapshots of MD simulation trajectories have been clustered based on different structural properties using a variety of clustering methods. To establish a possible correlation between docking performance and target conformational attributes the clustered snapshots have been subjected to extensive self- and cross-docking experiments as well as virtual screening using the GOLD docking programme. It is shown that conformationally similar snapshots do not necessarily result in a similar docking or virtual screening performance. The selection of the particular structural property on which to base the clustering appears to be the essential problem.

References

  1. Carlson HA: Protein flexibility and drug design: how to hit a moving target.

    Curr Opin Chem Biol 2002, 6:447-452. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  2. Durrant JD, McCammon JA: Computer-aided drug-discovery techniques that account for receptor flexibility.

    Curr Opin Pharmacol 2010, 10:770-774. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

  3. Barril X, Morley DS: Unveiling the full potential of flexible receptor docking using multiple crystallographic structures.

    J Med Chem 2005, 48:4432-4443. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  4. Huang S-Y, Zou H: Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: considering protein structural variations in molecular docking.

    Proteins 2007, 66:399-421. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  5. Lin J-H, Perryman AL, Schames JR, McCammon JA: Computational drug design accomodating receptor flexibility: the relaxed complex scheme.

    J Am Chem Soc 2002, 124:5632-5633. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL