» Articles » PMID: 30408032

A Benchmark Driven Guide to Binding Site Comparison: An Exhaustive Evaluation Using Tailor-made Data Sets (ProSPECCTs)

Overview
Specialty Biology
Date 2018 Nov 9
PMID 30408032
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The automated comparison of protein-ligand binding sites provides useful insights into yet unexplored site similarities. Various stages of computational and chemical biology research can benefit from this knowledge. The search for putative off-targets and the establishment of polypharmacological effects by comparing binding sites led to promising results for numerous projects. Although many cavity comparison methods are available, a comprehensive analysis to guide the choice of a tool for a specific application is wanting. Moreover, the broad variety of binding site modeling approaches, comparison algorithms, and scoring metrics impedes this choice. Herein, we aim to elucidate strengths and weaknesses of binding site comparison methodologies. A detailed benchmark study is the only possibility to rationalize the selection of appropriate tools for different scenarios. Specific evaluation data sets were developed to shed light on multiple aspects of binding site comparison. An assembly of all applied benchmark sets (ProSPECCTs-Protein Site Pairs for the Evaluation of Cavity Comparison Tools) is made available for the evaluation and optimization of further and still emerging methods. The results indicate the importance of such analyses to facilitate the choice of a methodology that complies with the requirements of a specific scientific challenge.

Citing Articles

Comprehensive detection and characterization of human druggable pockets through binding site descriptors.

Comajuncosa-Creus A, Jorba G, Barril X, Aloy P Nat Commun. 2024; 15(1):7917.

PMID: 39256431 PMC: 11387482. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-52146-3.


Structure-Based Drug Design of ADRA2A Antagonists Derived from Yohimbine.

Chayka A, cesnek M, Kuzmova E, Kozak J, Tloustova E, Dvorakova A J Med Chem. 2024; 67(12):10135-10151.

PMID: 38857067 PMC: 11215778. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.4c00323.


VirtuousPocketome: a computational tool for screening protein-ligand complexes to identify similar binding sites.

Pallante L, Cannariato M, Androutsos L, Zizzi E, Bompotas A, Hada X Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):6296.

PMID: 38491261 PMC: 10943019. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-56893-7.


Integrated Molecular Modeling and Machine Learning for Drug Design.

Xia S, Chen E, Zhang Y J Chem Theory Comput. 2023; 19(21):7478-7495.

PMID: 37883810 PMC: 10653122. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00814.


An Intriguing Purview on the Design of Macrocyclic Inhibitors for Unexplored Protein Kinases through Their Binding Site Comparison.

Bhujbal S, Hah J Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2023; 16(7).

PMID: 37513921 PMC: 10386424. DOI: 10.3390/ph16071009.


References
1.
Schirris T, Renkema G, Ritschel T, Voermans N, Bilos A, van Engelen B . Statin-Induced Myopathy Is Associated with Mitochondrial Complex III Inhibition. Cell Metab. 2015; 22(3):399-407. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.08.002. View

2.
Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez J . pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011; 12:77. PMC: 3068975. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-77. View

3.
Sturm N, Desaphy J, Quinn R, Rognan D, Kellenberger E . Structural insights into the molecular basis of the ligand promiscuity. J Chem Inf Model. 2012; 52(9):2410-21. DOI: 10.1021/ci300196g. View

4.
Hoffmann B, Zaslavskiy M, Vert J, Stoven V . A new protein binding pocket similarity measure based on comparison of clouds of atoms in 3D: application to ligand prediction. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010; 11:99. PMC: 2838872. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-99. View

5.
Schalon C, Surgand J, Kellenberger E, Rognan D . A simple and fuzzy method to align and compare druggable ligand-binding sites. Proteins. 2008; 71(4):1755-78. DOI: 10.1002/prot.21858. View