Sunsetting Binding MOAD with Its Last Data Update and the Addition of 3D-ligand Polypharmacology Tools

Overview

Journal Sci Rep

Specialty Science

Date 2023 Feb 22

PMID 36810894

Authors

Swapnil Wagle

Richard D Smith

Anthony J Dominic 3rd

Debarati Dasgupta

Sunil Kumar Tripathi

Heather A Carlson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Binding MOAD is a database of protein-ligand complexes and their affinities with many structured relationships across the dataset. The project has been in development for over 20 years, but now, the time has come to bring it to a close. Currently, the database contains 41,409 structures with affinity coverage for 15,223 (37%) complexes. The website BindingMOAD.org provides numerous tools for polypharmacology exploration. Current relationships include links for structures with sequence similarity, 2D ligand similarity, and binding-site similarity. In this last update, we have added 3D ligand similarity using ROCS to identify ligands which may not necessarily be similar in two dimensions but can occupy the same three-dimensional space. For the 20,387 different ligands present in the database, a total of 1,320,511 3D-shape matches between the ligands were added. Examples of the utility of 3D-shape matching in polypharmacology are presented. Finally, plans for future access to the project data are outlined.

Citing Articles

Databases of ligand-binding pockets and protein-ligand interactions.

Carpenter K, Altman R Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2024; 23:1320-1338.

PMID: 38585646 PMC: 10997877. DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2024.03.015.

Enzyme function and evolution through the lens of bioinformatics.

Ribeiro A, Riziotis I, Borkakoti N, Thornton J Biochem J. 2023; 480(22):1845-1863.

PMID: 37991346 PMC: 10754289. DOI: 10.1042/BCJ20220405.

References

Chen X, Lin Y, Gilson M . The binding database: overview and user's guide. Biopolymers. 2002; 61(2):127-41. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0282(2002)61:2<127::AID-BIP10076>3.0.CO;2-N. View

Mukherjee G, Jayaram B . A rapid identification of hit molecules for target proteins via physico-chemical descriptors. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2013; 15(23):9107-16. DOI: 10.1039/c3cp44697b. View

Smith R, Engdahl A, Dunbar Jr J, Carlson H . Biophysical limits of protein-ligand binding. J Chem Inf Model. 2012; 52(8):2098-106. PMC: 3428497. DOI: 10.1021/ci200612f. View

Martin Y, Kofron J, Traphagen L . Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity?. J Med Chem. 2002; 45(19):4350-8. DOI: 10.1021/jm020155c. View

Liu T, Lin Y, Wen X, Jorissen R, Gilson M . BindingDB: a web-accessible database of experimentally determined protein-ligand binding affinities. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006; 35(Database issue):D198-201. PMC: 1751547. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkl999. View

Corbeil C, Williams C, Labute P . Variability in docking success rates due to dataset preparation. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2012; 26(6):775-86. PMC: 3397132. DOI: 10.1007/s10822-012-9570-1. View

Shin W, Zhu X, Bures M, Kihara D . Three-dimensional compound comparison methods and their application in drug discovery. Molecules. 2015; 20(7):12841-62. PMC: 5005041. DOI: 10.3390/molecules200712841. View

Chen X, Liu M, Gilson M . BindingDB: a web-accessible molecular recognition database. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen. 2002; 4(8):719-25. DOI: 10.2174/1386207013330670. View

Keiser M, Setola V, Irwin J, Laggner C, Abbas A, Hufeisen S . Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs. Nature. 2009; 462(7270):175-81. PMC: 2784146. DOI: 10.1038/nature08506. View

10.

Mitternacht S, Berezovsky I . A geometry-based generic predictor for catalytic and allosteric sites. Protein Eng Des Sel. 2010; 24(4):405-9. DOI: 10.1093/protein/gzq115. View

11.

Ahmed A, Mam B, Sowdhamini R . DEELIG: A Deep Learning Approach to Predict Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity. Bioinform Biol Insights. 2021; 15:11779322211030364. PMC: 8274096. DOI: 10.1177/11779322211030364. View

12.

Santos-Martins D, Forli S, Ramos M, Olson A . AutoDock4(Zn): an improved AutoDock force field for small-molecule docking to zinc metalloproteins. J Chem Inf Model. 2014; 54(8):2371-9. PMC: 4144784. DOI: 10.1021/ci500209e. View

13.

Hawkins P, Skillman A, Nicholls A . Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools. J Med Chem. 2007; 50(1):74-82. DOI: 10.1021/jm0603365. View

14.

Swapna L, Srikeerthana K, Srinivasan N . Extent of structural asymmetry in homodimeric proteins: prevalence and relevance. PLoS One. 2012; 7(5):e36688. PMC: 3358323. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036688. View

15.

Li H, Leung K, Ballester P, Wong M . istar: a web platform for large-scale protein-ligand docking. PLoS One. 2014; 9(1):e85678. PMC: 3901662. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085678. View

16.

Desaphy J, Rognan D . sc-PDB-Frag: a database of protein-ligand interaction patterns for Bioisosteric replacements. J Chem Inf Model. 2014; 54(7):1908-18. DOI: 10.1021/ci500282c. View

17.

Carlson H, Smith R, Khazanov N, Kirchhoff P, Dunbar Jr J, Benson M . Differences between high- and low-affinity complexes of enzymes and nonenzymes. J Med Chem. 2008; 51(20):6432-41. PMC: 2692211. DOI: 10.1021/jm8006504. View

18.

Hogues H, Sulea T, Purisima E . Exhaustive docking and solvated interaction energy scoring: lessons learned from the SAMPL4 challenge. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2014; 28(4):417-27. DOI: 10.1007/s10822-014-9715-5. View

19.

Zhang Y, Guo Z, Li M, Fong P, Zhang J, Zhang C . Gabapentin Effects on PKC-ERK1/2 Signaling in the Spinal Cord of Rats with Formalin-Induced Visceral Inflammatory Pain. PLoS One. 2015; 10(10):e0141142. PMC: 4626203. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141142. View

20.

Smith R, Clark J, Ahmed A, Orban Z, Dunbar Jr J, Carlson H . Updates to Binding MOAD (Mother of All Databases): Polypharmacology Tools and Their Utility in Drug Repurposing. J Mol Biol. 2019; 431(13):2423-2433. PMC: 6589129. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmb.2019.05.024. View