1 / 26

AFMoC Enhances Predictivity of 3D QSAR: A Case Study with DOXP-reductoisomerase

AFMoC Enhances Predictivity of 3D QSAR: A Case Study with DOXP-reductoisomerase K. Silber, P. Heidler, T. Kurz, G. Klebe J. Med. Chem. 48(2005) 3547-3563 Journal Club, Presented by Lei Xie Motivations No other papers read Interested in interface of biology and chemistry

Download Presentation

AFMoC Enhances Predictivity of 3D QSAR: A Case Study with DOXP-reductoisomerase

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. AFMoC Enhances Predictivity of 3D QSAR: A Case Study with DOXP-reductoisomerase K. Silber, P. Heidler, T. Kurz, G. Klebe J. Med. Chem. 48(2005) 3547-3563 Journal Club, Presented by Lei Xie

  2. Motivations • No other papers read • Interested in interface of biology and chemistry • Inspired by a talk on nuclear receptors in the group meeting

  3. Motivations • No other papers read • Interested in interface of biology and chemistry • Inspired by a talk in the group meeting

  4. Outlines • Basic of 3D-QSAR • Discussion of the paper • Ideas derived from the paper

  5. Concept of 3D QSAR • Correlates spatially located features across a chemical series with biological activity • Procedures: 1. Selection of active conformation 2. Alignment of conformers 3. 3D field calculation in a box and grids 4. Derivation and validation of models

  6. Step 1: Selection of Active Conformation O • Global minimum-enery conformation • Active analogs and pharmacophores • Protein-ligand complex • Intuitions N

  7. Step2: Alignment of conformers • Manuel: pharmacophore or moments of inertia • Semi-automatic: overlap of steric and electrostatic • Fully-automatic: fragment re-construction • No alignment O N

  8. Step 3: 3D field calculation in grids • CoMFA: Lennard-Jones and Coulomb interactions • CoMSIA: molecular similarity O N

  9. Step 4: Derivation and validation of models M1 M2 M3 ………. …… Mn • Regression, classification or clustering in a mxn matrix • Challenges in experimental design, feature selections and model validations W1 E1 W2 E2 . . . Wm Em Y

  10. Adaptation of fields for Molecular Comparison (AFMoC)A technique to combine protein-ligand interaction and 3D-QSAR to improve selection of active conformation, alignment quality,affinity prediction

  11. Concept of AFMoC: Step 1 • Active conformations and molecular alignments are determined with protein-ligand docking O N

  12. Concept of AFMoC: Step 2 • Decompose the general scoring function at each of grids in the binding pocket • Interaction fields are yielded by considering the contribution of the binding ligand to each of the grids O N

  13. Concept of AFMoC: Step 3 M1 M2 M3 ………. …… Mn • Regression with experimental affinity data to obtain binding models for specified protein family • Balance between the general and specific scoring function depending on the training data W1 E1 W2 E2 . . . Wm Em Y

  14. DOXP-reductoisomerase(DXR):A new drug target for multidrug-resistance malaria

  15. DXR structures • Challenges in structure-based drug design • Contains metal-ligand coordination • Requires cofactor binding - Possesses a large flexible loop

  16. Training and Testing Data • 27 for model building • 14 for testing • Testing data set includes functional groups that are not included in the training data

  17. Results: Regression Models • CoMFA, CoMSIA, and AFMoC all derived statistically-significant models Figure 5 (a) Experimentally determined binding affinities versus fitted predictions using the derived 3D QSAR models for the training set. Results are shown applying the optimal number of components, which is 5 for CoMFA ( ) and 4 for CoMSIA ( ), respectively. (b) Experimentally determined binding affinities versus fitted AFMoC predictions for the 27 training set DOXP-reductoisomerase inhibitors. Both experimental and calculated values are shown considering only the part of binding affinity (pIC50PLS) used in PLS analysis ( ) or considering the total binding affinity ( ). In addition to the line of ideal correlation, dashed lines are depicted to indicate deviations of one logarithmic unit from ideal prediction.

  18. Results: Prediction Power • CoMFA and CoMSIA fail for ligands comprising functional groups not present in or exhibiting minor structural differences from the training • AFMoC is capable to correlate structural changes with affinity • General docking methods do not perform as well as AFMoC a Values are given considering only the pair potentials for the prediction or considering also the solvent-accessible surface term (values in parentheses).b Squared correlation coefficient.c In logarithmic units.d Values are given for the optimal number of components, which are 4 for AFMoC, 5 for CoMFA, and 4 for CoMSIA.e Values in italics denote lacking correlation.

  19. Results: General vs. Adapted • Best mixture of general and adapted model depends on the available training data. Figure 8 Dependence of squared correlation coefficient (r2) for AFMoC models on the mixing coefficient between original DrugScore potentials ( = 0) and specifically adapted AFMoC fields (PLS-model, = 1).

  20. Summary on the Paper • Protein structure information, even not perfect, is valuable for 3D-QSAR studies • Protein family adapted scoring functions is superior to general one • A general framework can be extend to other studies

  21. Genome-wide Prediction of Protein-Ligand Interactions

  22. Scopes • Prediction of protein-ligand binding specificity given a protein sequence and a ligand

  23. Procedures • Decomposition of scoring functions with amino acid residues and identification of “hot spot” with known protein structures for a protein family • Derivation of regression or classification models that correlate binding ligands and evolutionary profiles at the hot spot • Exploration of genome sequences based on sequence/structure alignments and phylogenetic analysis • Extension with functional site characterization and analysis

  24. Applications • Drug Discovery Target verifications, Lead discovery, Drug resistance (HIV, Gleevac), Off-target identifications • Protein design • Nature product identification

  25. Data • Protein structure (not necessary complex) • Binding affinity Availability • PDBBind - Structure abundant families (protein kinase, matrix metalloproteases etc.) • Structural genomics – structure • NIH chemical genomics initiative – binding affinity • High throughput screening and combinatorial library • Protein chips and other techonologies

  26. THANKS

More Related