Abstract
Fragment-based drug design (FBDD) involves screening low molecular weight molecules (“fragments”) that correspond to functional groups found in larger drug-like molecules to determine their binding to target proteins or nucleic acids. Based on the principle of thermodynamic additivity, two fragments that bind nonoverlapping nearby sites on the target can be combined to yield a new molecule whose binding free energy is the sum of those of the fragments. Experimental FBDD approaches, like NMR and X-ray crystallography, have proven very useful but can be expensive in terms of time, materials, and labor. Accordingly, a variety of computational FBDD approaches have been developed that provide different levels of detail and accuracy.
The Site Identification by Ligand Competitive Saturation (SILCS) method of computational FBDD uses all-atom explicit-solvent molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to identify fragment binding. The target is “soaked” in an aqueous solution with multiple fragments having different identities. The resulting computational competition assay reveals what small molecule types are most likely to bind which regions of the target. From SILCS simulations, 3D probability maps of fragment binding called “FragMaps” can be produced. Based on the probabilities relative to bulk, SILCS FragMaps can be used to determine “Grid Free Energies (GFEs),” which provide per-atom contributions to fragment binding affinities. For essentially no additional computational overhead relative to the production of the FragMaps, GFEs can be used to compute Ligand Grid Free Energies (LGFEs) for arbitrarily complex molecules, and these LGFEs can be used to rank-order the molecules in accordance with binding affinities.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Erlanson DA, McDowell RS, O’Brien T (2004) Fragment-based drug discovery. J Med Chem 47:3463–34682
Dill KA (1997) Additivity principles in biochemistry. J Biol Chem 272:701–704
Hennig M, Ruf A, Huber W (2012) Combining biophysical screening and X-ray crystallography for fragment-based drug discovery. Top Curr Chem 317:115–143
Erlanson DA (2012) Introduction to fragment-based drug discovery. Top Curr Chem 317:1–32
Orita M, Warizaya M, Amano Y, Ohno K, Niimi T (2009) Advances in fragment-based drug discovery platforms. Expert Opin Drug Discov 4:1125–1144
Sancineto L, Massari S, Iraci N, Tabarrini O (2013) From small to powerful: the fragments universe and its “chem-appeal”. Curr Med Chem 20:1355–1381
Miranker A, Karplus M (1991) Functionality maps of binding-sites – a multiple copy simultaneous search method. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 11:29–34
Majeux N, Scarsi M, Apostolakis J, Ehrhardt C, Caflisch A (1999) Exhaustive docking of molecular fragments with electrostatic solvation. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 37:88–105
Landon MR, Lancia DR Jr, Yu J, Thiel SC, Vajda S (2007) Identification of hot spots within druggable binding regions by computational solvent mapping of proteins. J Med Chem 50:1231–1240
Clark M, Guarnieri F, Shkurko I, Wiseman J (2006) Grand canonical Monte Carlo simulation of ligand-protein binding. J Chem Inf Model 46:231–242
Carlson HA, Masukawa KM, Rubins K, Bushman FD, Jorgensen WL, Lins RD, Briggs JM, McCammon JA (2000) Developing a dynamic pharmacophore model for HIV-1 integrase. J Med Chem 43:2100–21014
Alonso H, Bliznyuk AA, Gready JE (2006) Combining docking and molecular dynamic simulations in drug design. Med Res Rev 26:531–568
Brooijmans N, Kuntz ID (2003) Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 32:335–373
Sousa SF, Fernandes PA, Ramos MJ (2006) Protein-ligand docking: current status and future challenges. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinf 65:15–26
Zhong S, Chen X, Zhu X, Dziegielewska B, Bachman KE, Ellenberger T, Ballin JD, Wilson GM, Tomkinson AE, MacKerell AD (2008) Identification and validation of human DNA ligase inhibitors using computer-aided drug design. J Med Chem 51:4553–4562
Totrov M, Abagyan R (2008) Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative. Curr Opin Struct Biol 18:178–184
Congreve M, Chessari G, Tisi D, Woodhead AJ (2008) Recent developments in fragment-based drug discovery. J Med Chem 51:3661–3680
Majeux N, Scarsi M, Caflisch A (2001) Efficient electrostatic solvation model for protein-fragment docking. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 42:256–268
Gozalbes R, Carbajo RJ, Pineda-Lucena A (2010) Contributions of computational chemistry and biophysical techniques to fragment-based drug discovery. Curr Med Chem 17:1769–1794
Rabal O, Urbano-Cuadrado M, Oyarzabal J (2011) Computational medicinal chemistry in fragment-based drug discovery: what, how and when. Future Med Chem 3:95–134
Moitessier N, Englebienne P, Lee D, Lawandi J, Corbeil CR (2008) Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go. Br J Pharmacol 153(Suppl 1):S7–S26
Guvench O, MacKerell AD Jr (2009) Computational evaluation of protein-small molecule binding. Curr Opin Struct Biol 19:56–61
Huang SY, Grinter SZ, Zou X (2010) Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein-ligand docking: recent advances and future directions. Phys Chem Chem Phys 12:12899–12908
Huang SY, Zou X (2010) Advances and challenges in protein-ligand docking. Int J Mol Sci 11:3016–3034
Oostenbrink C, Villa A, Mark AE, Van Gunsteren WF (2004) A biomolecular force field based on the free enthalpy of hydration and solvation: the GROMOS force-field parameter sets 53A5 and 53A6. J Comput Chem 25:1656–1676
Cornell WD, Cieplak P, Bayly CI, Gould IR, Merz KM Jr, Ferguson DM, Spellmeyer DC, Fox T, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA (1995) A second generation force field for the simulation of proteins, nucleic acids, and organic molecules. J Am Chem Soc 117:5179–5197
Hornak V, Abel R, Okur A, Strockbine B, Roitberg A, Simmerling C (2006) Comparison of multiple amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinf 65:712–725
Wang JM, Wolf RM, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA, Case DA (2004) Development and testing of a general amber force field. J Comput Chem 25:1157–1174
Jorgensen WL, Maxwell DS, Tirado-Rives J (1996) Development and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids. J Am Chem Soc 118:11225–11236
Kaminski GA, Friesner RA, Tirado-Rives J, Jorgensen WL (2001) Evaluation and reparametrization of the OPLS-AA force field for proteins via comparison with accurate quantum chemical calculations on peptides. J Phys Chem B 105:6474–6487
Vanommeslaeghe K, Hatcher E, Acharya C, Kundu S, Zhong S, Shim J, Darian E, Guvench O, Lopes P, Vorobyov I, Mackerell AD Jr (2010) CHARMM general force field: a force field for drug-like molecules compatible with the CHARMM all-atom additive biological force fields. J Comput Chem 31:671–690
Best RB, Zhu X, Shim J, Lopes PE, Mittal J, Feig M, Mackerell AD Jr (2012) Optimization of the additive CHARMM all-atom protein force field targeting improved sampling of the backbone phi, psi and side-chain chi(1) and chi(2) dihedral angles. J Chem Theory Comput 8:3257–3273
Guvench O, MacKerell AD Jr (2008) Comparison of protein force fields for molecular dynamics simulations. Methods Mol Biol 443:63–88
Boresch S, Tettinger F, Leitgeb M, Karplus M (2003) Absolute binding free energies: a quantitative approach for their calculation. J Phys Chem B 107:9535–9551
Jayachandran G, Shirts MR, Park S, Pande VS (2006) Parallelized-over-parts computation of absolute binding free energy with docking and molecular dynamics. J Chem Phys 125:084901
Jiao D, Golubkov PA, Darden TA, Ren P (2008) Calculation of protein-ligand binding free energy by using a polarizable potential. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:6290–6295
Lee MS, Olson MA (2006) Calculation of absolute protein-ligand binding affinity using path and endpoint approaches. Biophys J 90:864–877
Lee MS, Olson MA (2008) Calculation of absolute ligand binding free energy to a ribosome-targeting protein as a function of solvent model. J Phys Chem B 112:13411–13417
Mobley DL, Graves AP, Chodera JD, McReynolds AC, Shoichet BK, Dill KA (2007) Predicting absolute ligand binding free energies to a simple model site. J Mol Biol 371:1118–1134
Shirts MR, Mobley DL, Chodera JD, Pande VS (2007) Accurate and efficient corrections for missing dispersion interactions in molecular simulations. J Phys Chem B 111:13052–13063
Wang J, Deng Y, Roux B (2006) Absolute binding free energy calculations using molecular dynamics simulations with restraining potentials. Biophys J 91:2798–2814
Woo HJ, Roux B (2005) Calculation of absolute protein-ligand binding free energy from computer simulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:6825–6830
Gilson MK, Zhou HX (2007) Calculation of protein-ligand binding affinities. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 36:21–42
Guvench O, MacKerell AD Jr (2009) Computational fragment-based binding site identification by ligand competitive saturation. PLoS Comput Biol 5:e1000435
Raman EP, Yu W, Lakkaraju SK, MacKerell AD Jr (2013) Inclusion of multiple fragment types in the site identification by ligand competitive saturation (SILCS) approach. J Chem Inf Model 53:3384–3398
Kuntz ID, Chen K, Sharp KA, Kollman PA (1999) The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96:9997–10002
Hopkins AL, Groom CR, Alex A (2004) Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov Today 9:430–431
Spyrakis F, BidonChanal A, Barril X, Luque FJ (2011) Protein flexibility and ligand recognition: challenges for molecular modeling. Curr Top Med Chem 11:192–210
Seco J, Luque FJ, Barril X (2009) Binding site detection and druggability index from first principles. J Med Chem 52:2363–2371
Yang C-Y, Wang S (2011) Hydrophobic binding hot spots of Bcl-xL protein‚ protein interfaces by cosolvent molecular dynamics simulation. ACS Med Chem Lett 2:280–284
Lexa KW, Carlson HA (2011) Full protein flexibility is essential for proper hot-spot mapping. J Am Chem Soc 133:200–202
Tan YS, Sledz P, Lang S, Stubbs CJ, Spring DR, Abell C, Best RB (2012) Using ligand-mapping simulations to design a ligand selectively targeting a cryptic surface pocket of polo-like kinase 1. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 51:10078–10081
Bakan A, Nevins N, Lakdawala AS, Bahar I (2012) Druggability assessment of allosteric proteins by dynamics simulations in the presence of probe molecules. J Chem Theory Comput 8:2435–4247
Foster TJ, Mackerell AD Jr, Guvench O (2012) Balancing target flexibility and target denaturation in computational fragment-based inhibitor discovery. J Comput Chem 33:1880–1891
Boczko EM, Brooks CL III (1995) First-principles calculation of the folding free energy of a three-helix bundle protein. Science 269:393–396
Sheinerman FB, Brooks CL III (1998) Calculations on folding of segment B1 of streptococcal protein G. J Mol Biol 278:439–456
Shea JE, Brooks CL III (2001) From folding theories to folding proteins: a review and assessment of simulation studies of protein folding and unfolding. Annu Rev Phys Chem 52:499–535
Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K (1996) VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J Mol Graph 14:33–38
Sanner MF (1999) Python: a programming language for software integration and development. J Mol Graph Model 17:57–61
Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, Sanner MF, Belew RK, Goodsell DS, Olson AJ (2009) AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem 30:2785–2791
Winn MD, Ballard CC, Cowtan KD, Dodson EJ, Emsley P, Evans PR, Keegan RM, Krissinel EB, Leslie AG, McCoy A, McNicholas SJ, Murshudov GN, Pannu NS, Potterton EA, Powell HR, Read RJ, Vagin A, Wilson KS (2011) Overview of the CCP4 suite and current developments. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 67:235–242
Bernard D, Coop A, MacKerell AD Jr (2007) Quantitative conformationally sampled pharmacophore for delta opioid ligands: reevaluation of hydrophobic moieties essential for biological activity. J Med Chem 50:1799–1809
Raman EP, Yu W, Guvench O, MacKerell AD Jr (2011) Reproducing crystal binding modes of ligand functional groups using site-identification by ligand competitive saturation (SILCS) simulations. J Chem Inf Model 51:877–896
Baum B, Muley L, Heine A, Smolinski M, Hangauer D, Klebe G (2009) Think twice: understanding the high potency of bis(phenyl)methane inhibitors of thrombin. J Mol Biol 391:552–564
Acknowledgements
NIH AI080968, CA107331, and R15GM099022; NSF XSEDE TG-MCB120007; Samuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation; The University of Maryland Computer-Aided Drug Design Center; and University of New England start-up funds.
Conflict of interest: O.G. and A.D.M. are founders of SilcsBio LLC and are currently Manager and Chief Scientific Officer of the same, respectively.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Faller, C.E., Raman, E.P., MacKerell, A.D., Guvench, O. (2015). Site Identification by Ligand Competitive Saturation (SILCS) Simulations for Fragment-Based Drug Design. In: Klon, A. (eds) Fragment-Based Methods in Drug Discovery. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 1289. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2486-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2486-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2485-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2486-8
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols