Abstract
Computational methods, applied at the early stages of the drug design process, use current technology to provide valuable insights into the understanding of chemical systems in a virtual manner, complementing experimental analysis. Molecular docking is an in silico method employed to foresee binding modes of small compounds or macromolecules in contact with a receptor and to predict their molecular interactions. Moreover, the methodology opens up the possibility of ranking these compounds according to a hierarchy determined using particular scoring functions. Docking protocols assign many approximations, and most of them lack receptor flexibility. Therefore, the reliability of the resulting protein–ligand complexes is uncertain. The association with the costly but more accurate MD techniques provides significant complementary with docking. MD simulations can be used before docking since a series of “new” and broader protein conformations can be extracted from the processing of the resulting trajectory and employed as targets for docking. They also can be utilized a posteriori to optimize the structures of the final complexes from docking, calculate more detailed interaction energies, and provide information about the ligand binding mechanism. Here, we focus on protocols that offer the docking–MD combination as a logical approach to improving the drug discovery process.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Sliwoski G, Kothiwale S, Meiler J, Lowe EW (2014) Computational methods in drug discovery. Pharmacol Rev 66:334–395
Lounnas V, Ritschel T, Kelder J, McGuire R, Bywater RP, Foloppe N (2013) Current progress in structure-based rational drug design marks a new mindset in drug discovery. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 5:1–14
Salum LB, Polikarpov I, Andricopulo AD (2008) Structure-based approach for the study of estrogen receptor binding affinity and subtype selectivity. J Chem Inf Model 48:2243–2253
Fischer E (1894) Influence of configuration on the action of enzymes. Ber Dtsch Chem Ges 27:2985–2993
Chen Y-C (2015) Beware of docking! Trends Pharmacol Sci 36:78–95
Hou X, Du J, Zhang J, Du L, Fang H, Li M (2013) How to improve docking accuracy of AutoDock4. 2: a case study using different electrostatic potentials. J Chem Inf Model 53:188–200
Lee MR, Sun Y (2007) Improving docking accuracy through molecular mechanics generalized born optimization and scoring. J Chem Theory Comput 3:1106–1119
Karplus M, McCammon JA (2002) Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules. Nat Struct Biol 9:646–652
Doerr S, Harvey M, Noé F, De Fabritiis G (2016) HTMD: High-throughput molecular dynamics for molecular discovery. J Chem Theory Comput 12:1845–1852
Buch I, Giorgino T, De Fabritiis G (2011) Complete reconstruction of an enzyme-inhibitor binding process by molecular dynamics simulations. Proc Nati Acad Sci U S A 108:10184–10189
Durrant JD, McCammon JA (2011) Molecular dynamics simulations and drug discovery. BMC Biol 9:71
Mortier J, Rakers C, Bermudez M, Murgueitio MS, Riniker S, Wolber G (2015) The impact of molecular dynamics on drug design: applications for the characterization of ligand–macromolecule complexes. Drug Discov Today 20:686–702
Alonso H, Bliznyuk AA, Gready JE (2006) Combining docking and molecular dynamic simulations in drug design. Med Res Rev 26:531–568
Fang Y (2012) Ligand–receptor interaction platforms and their applications for drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discovery 7:969–988
Weigelt J (2010) Structural genomics—impact on biomedicine and drug discovery. Exp Cell Res 316:1332–1338
Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK (2005) ZINC–a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 45:177
Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Halliday RS, Huey R, Hart WE, Belew RK et al (1998) Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J Comput Chem 19:1639–1662
Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC, Leach AR, Taylor R (1997) Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J Mol Biol 267:727–748
Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, Halgren TA, Klicic JJ, Mainz DT et al (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 47:1739–1749
Halgren TA, Murphy RB, Friesner RA, Beard HS, Frye LL, Pollard WT et al (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J Med Chem 47:1750–1759
Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T, Klebe G (1996) A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol 261:470–489
DeLano WL (2002) The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System. De-Lano Scientific, San Carlos, CA. http://www.pymol.org
Pettersen EF, Goddard TD, Huang CC, Couch GS, Greenblatt DM, Meng EC, Ferrin TE (2004) UCSF Chimera—a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J Comput Chem 25:1605–1612
Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K (1996) VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J Mol Graph 14:33–38
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
Brooks BR, Bruccoleri RE, Olafson BD, States DJ, Swaminathan S, Karplus M (1983) CHARMM: A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J Comput Chem 4:187–217
van der Spoel D, van Maaren PJ, Caleman C (2012) GROMACS molecule & liquid database. Bioinformatics 28:752–753
Nelson MT, Humphrey W, Gursoy A, Dalke A, Kalé LV, Skeel RD et al (1996) NAMD: a parallel, object-oriented molecular dynamics program. Int J High Perform Comput Appl 10:251–268
Case D, Berryman J, Betz R, Cerutti D, Cheatham T III, Darden T et al (2015) AMBER. University of California, San Francisco
Yuriev E, Agostino M, Ramsland PA (2011) Challenges and advances in computational docking: 2009 in review. J Mol Recognit 24:149–164
Jain AN (2006) Scoring functions for protein-ligand docking. Curr Protein Pept Sci 7:407–420
Malisi C, Schumann M, Toussaint NC, Kageyama J, Kohlbacher O, Höcker B (2012) Binding pocket optimization by computational protein design. PLoS One 7:e52505
Leaver-Fay A, Tyka M, Lewis SM, Lange OF, Thompson J, Jacak R et al (2011) ROSETTA3: an object-oriented software suite for the simulation and design of macromolecules. Methods Enzymol 487:545
Gainza P, Roberts KE, Georgiev I, Lilien RH, Keedy DA, Chen C-Y et al (2013) OSPREY: protein design with ensembles, flexibility, and provable algorithms. Methods Enzymol 523:87
Hong Enriquez RP, Pavan S, Benedetti F, Tossi A, Savoini A, Berti F et al (2012) Designing short peptides with high affinity for organic molecules: a combined docking, molecular dynamics, and Monte Carlo approach. J Chem Theory Comput 8:1121–1128
Jorgensen WL (2004) The many roles of computation in drug discovery. Science 303:1813–1818
Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H et al (2000) The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids 28:235–242
Hanwell MD, Curtis DE, Lonie DC, Vandermeersch T, Zurek E, Hutchison GR (2012) Avogadro: an advanced semantic chemical editor, visualization, and analysis platform. J Chem 4:17
Csizmadia P (2000) MarvinSketch and MarvinView: molecule applets for the World Wide Web. In: Proceedings of ECSOC-3 The Third International Electronic Conference on Synthetic Organic Chemistry, September 1–30, 1999, pp 367–369
Ultra C (2001) CambridgeSoft. Cambridge, MA, USA
Mullins JG (2012) 5 structural modelling pipelines in next generation sequencing projects. Adv Protein Chem Struct Biol 89:117
Feinstein WP, Brylinski M (2015) Calculating an optimal box size for ligand docking and virtual screening against experimental and predicted binding pockets. J Cheminform 7:18
Morra G, Genoni A, Neves M, Merz J, Colombo G (2010) Molecular recognition and drug-lead identification: what can molecular simulations tell us? Curr Med Chem 17:25–41
Ivetac A, Andrew McCammon J (2011) Molecular recognition in the case of flexible targets. Curr Pharm Des 17:1663–1671
Klepeis JL, Lindorff-Larsen K, Dror RO, Shaw DE (2009) Long-timescale molecular dynamics simulations of protein structure and function. Curr Opin Struct Biol 19:120–127
Lu H, Tonge PJ (2010) Drug–target residence time: critical information for lead optimization. Curr Opin Chem Biol 14:467–474
De Vivo M, Masetti M, Bottegoni G, Cavalli A (2016) Role of molecular dynamics and related methods in drug discovery. J Med Chem 59:4035–4061
Barril X, Morley SD (2005) Unveiling the full potential of flexible receptor docking using multiple crystallographic structures. J Med Chem 48:4432–4443
Amaro RE, Baron R, McCammon JA (2008) An improved relaxed complex scheme for receptor flexibility in computer-aided drug design. J Comput Aided Mol Des 22:693–705
Lin J-H, Perryman AL, Schames JR, McCammon JA (2002) Computational drug design accommodating receptor flexibility: the relaxed complex scheme. J Am Chem Soc 124:5632–5633
Ivetac A, Swift SE, Boyer PL, Diaz A, Naughton J, Young JA et al (2014) Discovery of novel inhibitors of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase through virtual screening of experimental and theoretical ensembles. Chem Biol Drug Des 83:521–531
Rueda M, Bottegoni G, Abagyan R (2010) Recipes for the selection of experimental protein conformations for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 50:186
Nichols SE, Baron R, Ivetac A, McCammon JA (2011) Predictive power of molecular dynamics receptor structures in virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 51:1439–1446
Tian S, Sun H, Pan P, Li D, Zhen X, Li Y et al (2014) Assessing an ensemble docking-based virtual screening strategy for kinase targets by considering protein flexibility. J Chem Inf Model 54:2664–2679
Gao C, Desaphy J, Vieth M (2017) Are induced fit protein conformational changes caused by ligand-binding predictable? A molecular dynamics investigation. J Comput Chem 38:1229–1237
Yadav IS, Nandekar PP, Shrivastava S, Sangamwar A, Chaudhury A, Agarwal SM (2014) Ensemble docking and molecular dynamics identify knoevenagel curcumin derivatives with potent anti-EGFR activity. Gene 539:82–90
Watanabe Y, Fukuyoshi S, Kato K, Hiratsuka M, Yamaotsu N, Hirono S et al (2017) Investigation of substrate recognition for cytochrome P450 1A2 mediated by water molecules using docking and molecular dynamics simulations. J Mol Graph Model 74:326–336
Carlevaro CM, Martins-Da-Silva JH, Savino W, Caffarena ER (2013) Plausible binding mode of the active α4β1 antagonist, Mk-0617, determined by docking and free energy calculations. J Theor Comput Chem 12:1250108
Trott O, Olson AJ (2010) AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem 31:455–461
Silva JHM, Dardenne LE, Savino W, Caffarena ER (2010) Analysis of α4 β1integrin specific antagonists binding modes: structural insights by molecular docking, molecular dynamics and linear interaction energy method for free energy calculations. J Braz Chem Soc 21:546–555
Wang Q, Edupuganti R, Tavares CD, Dalby KN, Ren P (2015) Using docking and alchemical free energy approach to determine the binding mechanism of eEF2K inhibitors and prioritizing the compound synthesis. Front Mol Biosci 2:9
Clark AJ, Tiwary P, Borrelli K, Feng S, Miller EB, Abel R, Friesner RA, Berne BJ (2016) Prediction of protein–ligand binding poses via a combination of induced fit docking and metadynamics simulations. J Chem Theory Comput 12:2990–2998
Sinko W, Lindert S, McCammon JA (2013) Accounting for receptor flexibility and enhanced sampling methods in computer-aided drug design. Chem Biol Drug Des 81:41–49
Brandt AM, Batista PR, Souza-Silva F, Alves CR, Caffarena ER (2016) Exploring the unbinding of Leishmania (L.) amazonensis CPB derived-epitopes from H2 MHC class I proteins. Proteins 84:473–487
Sutherland JJ, Nandigam RK, Erickson JA, Vieth M (2007) Lessons in molecular recognition. 2. Assessing and improving cross-docking accuracy. J Chem Inf Model 47:2293–2302
Huang N, Shoichet BK, Irwin JJ (2006) Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J Med Chem 49:6789–6801
Mysinger MM, Carchia M, Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK (2012) Directory of useful decoys, enhanced (DUD-E): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking. J Med Chem 55:6582–6594
Wang R, Fang X, Lu Y, Yang C-Y, Wang S (2005) The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates. J Med Chem 48:4111–4119
Cross JB, Thompson DC, Rai BK, Baber JC, Fan KY, Hu Y et al (2009) Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy. J Chem Inf Model 49:1455–1474
Biesiada J, Porollo A, Meller J (2012) On setting up and assessing docking simulations for virtual screening. Methods Mol Biol 928:1–16
Schmidt T, Bergner A, Schwede T (2014) Modelling three-dimensional protein structures for applications in drug design. Drug Discov Today 19:890–897
Wu G, Robertson DH, Brooks CL, Vieth M (2003) Detailed analysis of grid-based molecular docking: a case study of CDOCKER—A CHARMm-based MD docking algorithm. J Comput Chem 24:1549–1562
Zhou M, Luo H, Li R, Ding Z (2013) Exploring the binding mode of HIV-1 Vif inhibitors by blind docking, molecular dynamics and MM/GBSA. RSC Adv 3:22532–22543
Hetényi C, van der Spoel D (2002) Efficient docking of peptides to proteins without prior knowledge of the binding site. Protein Sci 11:1729–1737
Hetényi C, van der Spoel D (2006) Blind docking of drug-sized compounds to proteins with up to a thousand residues. FEBS Lett 580:1447–1450
Ghersi D, Sanchez R (2009) Improving accuracy and efficiency of blind protein-ligand docking by focusing on predicted binding sites. Proteins 74:417–424
Pérot S, Sperandio O, Miteva MA, Camproux A-C, Villoutreix BO (2010) Druggable pockets and binding site centric chemical space: a paradigm shift in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 15:656–667
Leis S, Schneider S, Zacharias M (2010) In silico prediction of binding sites on proteins. Curr Med Chem 17:1550–1562
Harris R, Olson AJ, Goodsell DS (2008) Automated prediction of ligand-binding sites in proteins. Proteins 70:1506–1517
Cosconati S, Forli S, Perryman AL, Harris R, Goodsell DS, Olson AJ (2010) Virtual screening with AutoDock: theory and practice. Expert Opin Drug Discovery 5:597–607
Forli S, Huey R, Pique ME, Sanner MF, Goodsell DS, Olson AJ (2016) Computational protein-ligand docking and virtual drug screening with the AutoDock suite. Nat Protoc 11:905–919
Bajorath J (2002) Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1:882–894
Ghosh S, Nie A, An J, Huang Z (2006) Structure-based virtual screening of chemical libraries for drug discovery. Curr Opin Chem Biol 10:194–202
Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ (1997) Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 23:3–25
Totrov M, Abagyan R (2008) Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative. Curr Opin Struct Biol 18:178–184
Ferrari AM, Wei BQ, Costantino L, Shoichet BK (2004) Soft docking and multiple receptor conformations in virtual screening. J Med Chem 47:5076
Källblad P, Dean PM (2003) Efficient conformational sampling of local side-chain flexibility. J Mol Biol 326:1651–1665
Lexa KW, Carlson HA (2012) Protein flexibility in docking and surface mapping. Q Rev Biophys 45:301–343
Jorgensen WL, Tirado-Rives J (1988) The OPLS [optimized potentials for liquid simulations] potential functions for proteins, energy minimizations for crystals of cyclic peptides and crambin. J Am Chem Soc 110:1657–1666
MacKerell AD Jr, Bashford D, Bellott M, Dunbrack RL Jr, Evanseck JD, Field MJ et al (1998) All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. J Phys Chem B 102:3586–3616
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
Wang J, 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
Vanommeslaeghe K, MacKerell AD Jr (2012) Automation of the CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF) I: bond perception and atom typing. J Chem Inf Model 52:3144
Vanommeslaeghe K, Raman EP, MacKerell AD Jr (2012) Automation of the CHARMM general force field (CGenFF) II: assignment of bonded parameters and partial atomic charges. J Chem Inf Model 52:3155
McCammon JA, Gelin BR, Karplus M (1977) Dynamics of folded proteins. Nature 267:585
Abrams C, Bussi G (2013) Enhanced sampling in molecular dynamics using metadynamics, replica-exchange, and temperature-acceleration. Entropy 16:163–199
Jorgensen WL, Thomas LL (2008) Perspective on free-energy perturbation calculations for chemical equilibria. J Chem Theory Comput 4:869
Laio A, Parrinello M (2002) Escaping free-energy minima. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:12562–12566
Isralewitz B, Gao M, Schulten K (2001) Steered molecular dynamics and mechanical functions of proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol 11:224–230
Hamelberg D, Mongan J, McCammon JA (2004) Accelerated molecular dynamics: a promising and efficient simulation method for biomolecules. J Chem Phys 120:11919–11929
Torrie GM, Valleau JP (1977) Nonphysical sampling distributions in Monte Carlo free-energy estimation: Umbrella sampling. J Comput Phys 23:187–199
Sugita Y, Okamoto Y (1999) Replica-exchange molecular dynamics method for protein folding. Chem Phys Lett 314:141–151
Lindahl E, Hess B, Van Der Spoel D (2001) GROMACS 3.0: a package for molecular simulation and trajectory analysis. J Mol Model 7:306–317
Van Der Spoel D, Lindahl E, Hess B, Groenhof G, Mark AE, Berendsen HJ (2005) GROMACS: fast, flexible, and free. J Comput Chem 26:1701–1718
Gullingsrud J, Saam J, Phillips J (2006) psfgen User’s Guide, vol 51. Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group, University of Illinois and Beckman Institute, Urbana, p 61801
Case DA, Cheatham TE, Darden T, Gohlke H, Luo R, Merz KM et al (2005) The Amber biomolecular simulation programs. J Comput Chem 26:1668–1688
Jorgensen WL, Chandrasekhar J, Madura JD, Impey RW, Klein ML (1983) Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J Chem Phys 79:926–935
Berendsen HJ, Postma JP, van Gunsteren WF, & Hermans J (1981) Interaction models for water in relation to protein hydration. In Intermolecular forces (pp. 331–342). Springer, Dordrecht
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Santos, L.H.S., Ferreira, R.S., Caffarena, E.R. (2019). Integrating Molecular Docking and Molecular Dynamics Simulations. In: de Azevedo Jr., W. (eds) Docking Screens for Drug Discovery. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 2053. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9752-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9752-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-9751-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-9752-7
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols