two examples of docking algorithms with thanks to maria teresa gil lucientes
Post on 19-Dec-2015
214 views
TRANSCRIPT
Why is this difficult? # of possible conformations are astronomical
– thousands of degrees of freedom (DOF) Free energy changes are small
– Below the accuracy of our energy functions Molecules are flexible
– alter each other’s structure as they interact
Some techniques
Surface representation, that efficiently represents the docking surface and identifies the regions of interest (cavities and protrusions)
• Connolly surface• Lenhoff technique• Kuntz et al. Clustered-Spheres• Alpha shapes
Surface matching that matches surfaces to optimize a binding score:
• Geometric Hashing
Surface Representation
Each atomic sphere is given the van der Waals radius of the atom
Rolling a Probe Sphere over the Van der Waals Surface leads to the Solvent Reentrant Surface or Connolly surface
Lenhoff technique
Computes a “complementary” surface for the receptor instead of the Connolly surface, i.e. computes possible positions for the atom centers of the ligand
Atom centers of the ligand
van der Waals surface
Kuntz et al. Clustered-Spheres
Uses clustered-spheres to identify cavities on the receptor and protrusions on the ligand
Compute a sphere for every pair of surface points, i and j, with the sphere center on the normal from point i
Regions where many spheres overlap are either cavities (on the receptor) or protrusions (on the ligand)
i
j
Alpha Shapes
Formalizes the idea of “shape” In 2D an “edge” between two points is “alpha-
exposed” if there exists a circle of radius alpha such that the two points lie on the surface of the circle and the circle contains no other points from the point set
Surface Matching
Find the transformation (rotation + translation) that will maximize the number of matching surface points from the receptor and the ligand
First satisfy steric constraints…• Find the best fit of the receptor and ligand using only
geometrical constraints
… then use energy calculations to refine the docking
• Selet the fit that has the minimum energy
Geometric Hashing
Building the Hash Table:– For each triplet of points from the ligand, generate a unique
system of reference– Store the position and orientation of all remaining points in
this coordinate system in the Hash Table
Searching in the Hash Table– For each triplet of points from the receptor, generate a
unique system of reference– Search the coordinates for each remaining point in the
receptor and find the appropriate hash table bin: For every entry there, vote for the basis
Geometric Hashing
– Determine those entries that received more than a threshold of votes, such entry corresponds to a potential match
– For each potential match recover the transformation T that results in the best least-squares match between all corresponding triplets
– Transform the features of the model according to the recovered transformation T and verify it. If the verification fails, choose a different receptor triplet and repeat the searching.
Example Docking Programs
DOCK (I. D. Kuntz, UCSF)
AutoDOCK (A. Olson, Scripps)
RosettaDOCK (Baker, U Wash., Gray, JHU)
More information in: http://www.bmm.icnet.uk/~smithgr/soft.html
DOCK
DOCK works in 5 steps: Step 1 Step 1 Start with coordinates of target receptor Step 2 Generate molecular surface for receptor Step 3 Fill active site of receptor with spheres
– potential locations for ligand atoms
Step 4 Match sphere centers to ligand atoms– determines possible orientations for the ligand
Step 5 Find the top scoring orientation
Other Docking programs
AutoDock– designed to dock flexible ligands into receptor
binding sites– Has a range of powerful optimization algorithms
RosettaDOCK– models physical forces– Creates a large number of decoys – degeneracy after clustering is final criterion in
selection of decoys to output
A Protein-Protein Docking Algorithm (Gray & Baker) Goal: to predict protein-protein complexes from the
coordinates of unbound monomer components. Two steps: A low-resolution Monte Carlo search and
a final optimization using Monte Carlo minimization. Up to 105 independent simulations produce “decoys”
that are ranked using an energy function. The top-ranking decoys are clustered for output.
Docking protocol: Step 1
RANDOM START POSITIONRANDOM START POSITION
Creation of a decoy begins with a random orientation of each partner and a translation of one partner along the line of protein centers to create a glancing contact between the proteins
Docking protocol: Step 2
LOW-RESOLUTION MONTE CARLO SEARCHLOW-RESOLUTION MONTE CARLO SEARCH
Low-resolution representation: N, C, C, O for the backbone and a “centroid” for the side-chain
One partner is translated and rotated around the surface of the other through 500 Monte Carlo move attempts
The score terms: A reward for contacting residues, a penalty for overlapping residues, an alignment score, residue environment and residue-residue interactions
Docking protocol: Step 3
HIGH-RESOLUTION REFINEMENTHIGH-RESOLUTION REFINEMENT
Explicit side-chains are added to the protein backbones using a rotamer packing algorithm, thus changing the energy surface
An explicit minimization finds the nearest local minimum accessible via rigid body translation and rotation
Start and Finish positions are compared by the Metropolis criterion
Docking protocol: Step 3
Before each cycle, the position of one protein is perturbed by random translations and by random rotations
To simultaneously optimize the side-chain conformations and the rigid body position, the side-chain packing and the minimization operations are repeated 50 times
Docking protocol: Step 3
COMPUTATIONAL EFFICIENCY
1. The packing algorithm usually varies the conformation of one residue at a time; rotamer optimization is performed once every eight cycles
2. Periodically filter to detect and reject inferior decoys without further refinement
Docking protocol: Step 4
CLUSTERING & PREDICTIONSCLUSTERING & PREDICTIONS
Repeat search to create approximately 105 decoys per target
Cluster best 200 decoys by a hierarchical clustering algorithm using RMSD
The clusters with the most members become predictions, ranked by cluster size
CAPRI Challenge (2002)
• At least one docking partner presented in its unbound form
• Participants permitted 5 attempts for each target
The 7 CAPRI Docking Targets