1 / 21

Virtual Screening at the post-genomic era Dr. Didier ROGNAN Bioinformatic Group UMR CNRS 7081

Virtual Screening at the post-genomic era Dr. Didier ROGNAN Bioinformatic Group UMR CNRS 7081 Illkirch, France didier.rognan@pharma.u-strasbg.fr. Virtual screening: Definition. Searching electronic databases (2D, 3D) for molecules fitting: a pharmacophore an active site.

sawyer
Download Presentation

Virtual Screening at the post-genomic era Dr. Didier ROGNAN Bioinformatic Group UMR CNRS 7081

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Virtual Screening at the post-genomic era Dr. Didier ROGNAN Bioinformatic Group UMR CNRS 7081 Illkirch, France didier.rognan@pharma.u-strasbg.fr

  2. Virtual screening: Definition • Searching electronic databases (2D, 3D) for molecules fitting: • a pharmacophore • an active site Walters et al. Drug Discovery Today1998, 3, 160-178 Schneider et al., Drug Discovery Today2002, 7, 64-70.

  3. Importance of virtual screening • SciScientific reasonsntific reasons • Increasing number of interesting macromolecular targets (500  10,000) • Increasing number of protein 3-D structures (X-ray, NMR) • Better knowledge of protein-ligand interactions • Dévelopement of chem- and bio-informatic methods • Increasing computing facilities • Economic reasons • High cost of high-througput screening (HTS): 0.2 € /molecule • Increase the ratio • ions • Applications • Identifying the very first ligands of orphan targets • Identifying/optimizing new chemical scaffolds # of active molecules (hits) # of tested molecules

  4. Database (3-D) Target (3D !!) 1. Orientation « docking » Mol # DGbind 11121 -44.51 222 -42.21 3563 -41.50 6578 -40.31 25639 -40.28 . . . . . . 100000 22.54 2. Evaluation « Scoring » Target-Ligand Complex Hit list Protein-based virtual screening

  5. Docking • Goal • Quickly find (1-2 min./molécule) • the orientation of the ligand in the active site • the protein-bound conformation • Méthods • Orientation • Surface complementarity • Complementarity of intermolecular interactions • Conformational freedom • Incremental construction • Conformational sampling (MC, GA, SA) Abagyan et al. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.2001, 5, 375-382

  6. Docking :Orientation Surface-based orientation (e.g. DOCK) 2. Molecular surface (active site) 1. 3D structure 4. Matching sphere centers with atoms 3. Filling the surface by overlapping spheres

  7. Docking :Orientation • interactions-based orientation (e.g. FlexX) • Statistical rules for locating ligand atoms • Overall placement of a base fragment by triangulation http://cartan.gmd.de/flexx

  8. Docking: Ligand flexibility - by preselecting several conformers/molecules - by incremental construction Fragment decomposition base fragment Ligand Reading preferred torsion values Selecting the « best » Termination adding the 2nd adding the 1st peripheral fragment peripheral fragment

  9. Docking: Ligand flexibility - by a genetic algorithm (e.g. Gold) Chromosome = Ligand (orientation, conformation) Initial population Selection of parents Genetic operators Selection of children New population Convergence test size # of evolutions Parent Score A 2.5 B 5.0 C 1.5 D 1.0 D C A B Survival rate New generation gene: x,y,z coords. tors. angles orientation … 100110010 010010011 100110011 010011010 100110010 100101010 crossing over crossing over rate mutation mutation rate http://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/prods/gold/

  10. Docking Accuracy Analysing 100 high-resolution PDB complexes Paul,N. and Rognan, D. Proteins, in press Finding a reliable pose out of a set of 30-50 solutions is feasible !

  11. Docking Accuracy Paul,N. and Rognan, D. Proteins, in press Analysing 100 high-resolution PDB complexes Ranking the most reliable solution at the top of the list is still an issue !

  12. Source of Docking Errors Nature of the active site (flat vs. cavity) Missed influence of water Ligand flexibility Inaccuracy of the scoring function Unusual binding mode/interactions Inadequate set of protein coordinates Wrong atom typing Impossible Difficult Easy

  13. Scoring 10 Thermodynamic Methods: FEP, TI (2) Force-fields (10-100) QSAR, 3D-QSAR(100-1,000) Empiricalscoring functions (>100,000) Accuracy Error, kJ/mol 2 2 1000 100,000 # of molecules

  14. Scoring • First-principle methods: • sum of physically meaningfull terms • Regression-based free energy approximations: • sum of regression-weighted terms • Potential of mean forces • distance-dependent atom pair-weighted Helmotz free energies Gohlke et al. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2001, 11,231-235

  15. D £ if r 0.25Å ì 1 ï - D < D £ 1 ( r - 0.25)/0.4 if 0.25 Å r 0.65 Å í ï D > 0 if r 0.65 Å î D £ ì 1 if α 3 0 º ï Da - D < D £ g ( ) = 1 α - 30)/50 if 30º α 80º ( í 2 ï D > 0 if α 80 º î D g ( r) = 1 £ ì if r R1 1 ï - < £ f(r) = 1 ( r - R1)/3. if R1 r R2 í ï > if r R2 0 î Empirical Scoring function Constant desolvation term buried-polar repulsive term H-bond term rotational term lipophilic term Fresno Rognan et al. (1999) J. Med. Chem., 42, 4650-4658.

  16. Scoring Accuracy • Current accuracy: 5-10 kJ/mol (1-2 pK unit) • Weak point of all docking programs • Entropic contributions are difficult to handle ! ! • Way-around: use of consensus scoring functions

  17. C[1](=C(C(=CS@1(=O)=O)SC[9]:C:C:C (:C:C:@9)Br)C[16]:C:C:C:C:C@16)N C[1](=C(C(=CS@1(=O)=O)SC[9]:C:C:C (:C:C:@9)Br)C[16]:C:C:C:C:C@16)N Full database 2-D Fingerprint Isis/Base • Filtering • Chemical reactivty • pharmacokinétics • Drug-likeness 2D  3D Hydrogens Ionisation 3-D Database Filtered database Library set-up

  18. Applications High-resolution X-ray structures (enzymes) Target Ligands Base Hit Reference Rate CD4-gp120 inhibitors 150,000 9.7 %Li et al., PNAS (1997) gp41 inhibitors 20,000 12.5 %Debnath et al., J. Med. Chem. (1999) FT inhibitors 219,000 19.0 %Perola et al., J. Med. Chem (2000) kinesin inhibitors 20,000 12.5 %Hopkins et al., Biochemistry (2000) HIV1 Tar-Tat inhibitors 153,000 25.0 %Filikov et al., JCAMD (2000) gp41 inhibitors 20,000 12.5 %Debnath et al., J. Med. Chem Bcl-2 inhibitors 207,000 20.0 %Enyedi et al., J. Med. Chem (2001) HCA-II inhibitors 90,000 61.0 %Grüneberg et al., Angew. (2001) RAR agonists 250,000 6.6 %Shapira et al., BMC Struct. Biol. (2001) TPI inhibiteurs 108,000 20.0 %Joubert et al., Proteins (2001) ERa antagonists 1,500,000 72.0 %Shapira et al. IBM Sys. J. (2001) FT: farnesyltransférase, HCA: human carbonic anhydrase, RAR: retonic acid receptor, ER: Estrogen receptor, TPI: triosephosphate isomerase, PEP: phosphoenolpyruvate

  19. Conclusions • What is possible ? • Discriminate true hits from random ligands • Enriching a reduced library by a factor 20 • Retrieving about 50% of all true hits • Prioritizing ligands for synthesis and experimental screening • Using virtual screening for lead finding • What remains to improve ? • Predicting the exact orientation • Predicting the absolute binding free energy • Discriminating true hits from “similar inactives“ • Catching all hits • Using virtual screening for lead optimization • Throughput (100K mols/day  1M/day ?) • Pre and post-processing of vHTS

  20. Virtual screening at the genomic scale Primary Sequence 3-D Model virtual Hits True Hits RCPGs of the human genome GPCR-Gen e-Libraries “Bioinfo” (350,000) “RCPG” ( 30,000) “Endo” ( 2,000) vHTS Validation Optimisation Sélectivity Affinity ADME/Tox vs. Enzymes (PDB library) vs. RCPGs (RCPG library) Available analogues Focussed Libraries

  21. Virtual screening: Tomorrow 1012 moleculesvirtualLibrary 109 107 107 (108 conformations) 105 (106 conformations) 104 103 100 ADME/Tox Similarité 2-D Conformations 3-D Similarity 3-D Docking Scoring expt.Validation True hits

More Related