An Allosteric Modulator of HIV‑1 Protease Shows Equipotent Inhibition of Wild-Type and Drug-Resistant Proteases

NMR and MD simulations have demonstrated that the flaps of HIV-1 protease (HIV-1p) adopt a range of conformations that are coupled with its enzymatic activity. Previously, a model was created for an allosteric site located between the flap and the core of HIV-1p, called the Eye site (Biopolymers 2008, 89, 643−652). Here, results from our first study were combined with a ligand-based, lead-hopping method to identify a novel compound (NIT). NIT inhibits HIV-1p, independent of the presence of an active-site inhibitor such as pepstatin A. Assays showed that NIT acts on an allosteric site other than the dimerization interface. MD simulations of the ligand–protein complex show that NIT stably binds in the Eye site and restricts the flaps. That bound state of NIT is consistent with a crystal structure of similar fragments bound in the Eye site (Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 2010, 75, 257−268). Most importantly, NIT is equally potent against wild-type and a multidrug-resistant mutant of HIV-1p, which highlights the promise of allosteric inhibitors circumventing existing clinical resistance

CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2011–2012: Evaluation of Results from Docking and Relative Ranking of Blinded Congeneric Series

The Community Structure–Activity Resource (CSAR) recently held its first blinded exercise based on data provided by Abbott, Vertex, and colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. A total of 20 research groups submitted results for the benchmark exercise where the goal was to compare different improvements for pose prediction, enrichment, and relative ranking of congeneric series of compounds. The exercise was built around blinded high-quality experimental data from four protein targets: LpxC, Urokinase, Chk1, and Erk2. Pose prediction proved to be the most straightforward task, and most methods were able to successfully reproduce binding poses when the crystal structure employed was co-crystallized with a ligand from the same chemical series. Multiple evaluation metrics were examined, and we found that RMSD and native contact metrics together provide a robust evaluation of the predicted poses. It was notable that most scoring functions underpredicted contacts between the hetero atoms (i.e., N, O, S, etc.) of the protein and ligand. Relative ranking was found to be the most difficult area for the methods, but many of the scoring functions were able to properly identify Urokinase actives from the inactives in the series. Lastly, we found that minimizing the protein and correcting histidine tautomeric states positively trended with low RMSD for pose prediction but minimizing the ligand negatively trended. Pregenerated ligand conformations performed better than those that were generated on the fly. Optimizing docking parameters and pretraining with the native ligand had a positive effect on the docking performance as did using restraints, substructure fitting, and shape fitting. Lastly, for both sampling and ranking scoring functions, the use of the empirical scoring function appeared to trend positively with the RMSD. Here, by combining the results of many methods, we hope to provide a statistically relevant evaluation and elucidate specific shortcomings of docking methodology for the community

CSAR Benchmark Exercise of 2010: Combined Evaluation Across All Submitted Scoring Functions

As part of the Community Structure-Activity Resource (CSAR) center, a set of 343 high-quality, protein–ligand crystal structures were assembled with experimentally determined <i>K</i>_d or <i>K</i>_i information from the literature. We encouraged the community to score the crystallographic poses of the complexes by any method of their choice. The goal of the exercise was to (1) evaluate the current ability of the field to predict activity from structure and (2) investigate the properties of the complexes and methods that appear to hinder scoring. A total of 19 different methods were submitted with numerous parameter variations for a total of 64 sets of scores from 16 participating groups. Linear regression and nonparametric tests were used to correlate scores to the experimental values. Correlation to experiment for the various methods ranged <i>R</i>² = 0.58–0.12, Spearman ρ = 0.74–0.37, Kendall τ = 0.55–0.25, and median unsigned error = 1.00–1.68 p<i>K</i>_d units. All types of scoring functionsforce field based, knowledge based, and empiricalhad examples with high and low correlation, showing no bias/advantage for any particular approach. The data across all the participants were combined to identify 63 complexes that were poorly scored across the majority of the scoring methods and 123 complexes that were scored well across the majority. The two sets were compared using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test to assess any significant difference in the distributions of >400 physicochemical properties of the ligands and the proteins. Poorly scored complexes were found to have ligands that were the same size as those in well-scored complexes, but hydrogen bonding and torsional strain were significantly different. These comparisons point to a need for CSAR to develop data sets of congeneric series with a range of hydrogen-bonding and hydrophobic characteristics and a range of rotatable bonds

CSAR Benchmark Exercise of 2010: Selection of the Protein–Ligand Complexes

A major goal in drug design is the improvement of computational methods for docking and scoring. The Community Structure Activity Resource (CSAR) aims to collect available data from industry and academia which may be used for this purpose (www.csardock.org). Also, CSAR is charged with organizing community-wide exercises based on the collected data. The first of these exercises was aimed to gauge the overall state of docking and scoring, using a large and diverse data set of protein–ligand complexes. Participants were asked to calculate the affinity of the complexes as provided and then recalculate with changes which may improve their specific method. This first data set was selected from existing PDB entries which had binding data (<i>K</i>_d or <i>K</i>_i) in Binding MOAD, augmented with entries from PDBbind. The final data set contains 343 diverse protein–ligand complexes and spans 14 p<i>K</i>_d. Sixteen proteins have three or more complexes in the data set, from which a user could start an inspection of congeneric series. Inherent experimental error limits the possible correlation between scores and measured affinity; <i>R</i>² is limited to ∼0.9 when fitting to the data set without over parametrizing. <i>R</i>² is limited to ∼0.8 when scoring the data set with a method trained on outside data. The details of how the data set was initially selected, and the process by which it matured to better fit the needs of the community are presented. Many groups generously participated in improving the data set, and this underscores the value of a supportive, collaborative effort in moving our field forward

CSAR Data Set Release 2012: Ligands, Affinities, Complexes, and Docking Decoys

A major goal in drug design is the improvement of computational methods for docking and scoring. The Community Structure Activity Resource (CSAR) has collected several data sets from industry and added in-house data sets that may be used for this purpose (www.csardock.org). CSAR has currently obtained data from Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, and Vertex and is working on obtaining data from several others. Combined with our in-house projects, we are providing a data set consisting of 6 protein targets, 647 compounds with biological affinities, and 82 crystal structures. Multiple congeneric series are available for several targets with a few representative crystal structures of each of the series. These series generally contain a few inactive compounds, usually not available in the literature, to provide an upper bound to the affinity range. The affinity ranges are typically 3–4 orders of magnitude per series. For our in-house projects, we have had compounds synthesized for biological testing. Affinities were measured by Thermofluor, Octet RED, and isothermal titration calorimetry for the most soluble. This allows the direct comparison of the biological affinities for those compounds, providing a measure of the variance in the experimental affinity. It appears that there can be considerable variance in the absolute value of the affinity, making the prediction of the absolute value ill-defined. However, the relative rankings within the methods are much better, and this fits with the observation that predicting relative ranking is a more tractable problem computationally. For those in-house compounds, we also have measured the following physical properties: logD, logP, thermodynamic solubility, and p<i>K</i>_a. This data set also provides a substantial decoy set for each target consisting of diverse conformations covering the entire active site for all of the 58 CSAR-quality crystal structures. The CSAR data sets (CSAR-NRC HiQ and the 2012 release) provide substantial, publically available, curated data sets for use in parametrizing and validating docking and scoring methods

CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2013: Evaluation of Results from a Combined Computational Protein Design, Docking, and Scoring/Ranking Challenge

Community Structure–Activity Resource (CSAR) conducted a benchmark exercise to evaluate the current computational methods for protein design, ligand docking, and scoring/ranking. The exercise consisted of three phases. The first phase required the participants to identify and rank order which designed sequences were able to bind the small molecule digoxigenin. The second phase challenged the community to select a near-native pose of digoxigenin from a set of decoy poses for two of the designed proteins. The third phase investigated the ability of current methods to rank/score the binding affinity of 10 related steroids to one of the designed proteins (p<i>K</i>_d = 4.1 to 6.7). We found that 11 of 13 groups were able to correctly select the sequence that bound digoxigenin, with most groups providing the correct three-dimensional structure for the backbone of the protein as well as all atoms of the active-site residues. Eleven of the 14 groups were able to select the appropriate pose from a set of plausible decoy poses. The ability to predict absolute binding affinities is still a difficult task, as 8 of 14 groups were able to correlate scores to affinity (Pearson-<i>r</i> > 0.7) of the designed protein for congeneric steroids and only 5 of 14 groups were able to correlate the ranks of the 10 related ligands (Spearman-ρ > 0.7)

CSAR 2014: A Benchmark Exercise Using Unpublished Data from Pharma

The 2014 CSAR Benchmark Exercise was the last community-wide exercise that was conducted by the group at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. For this event, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) donated unpublished crystal structures and affinity data from in-house projects. Three targets were used: tRNA (m1G37) methyltransferase (TrmD), Spleen Tyrosine Kinase (SYK), and Factor Xa (FXa). A particularly strong feature of the GSK data is its large size, which lends greater statistical significance to comparisons between different methods. In Phase 1 of the CSAR 2014 Exercise, participants were given several protein–ligand complexes and asked to identify the one near-native pose from among 200 decoys provided by CSAR. Though decoys were requested by the community, we found that they complicated our analysis. We could not discern whether poor predictions were failures of the chosen method or an incompatibility between the participant’s method and the setup protocol we used. This problem is inherent to decoys, and we strongly advise against their use. In Phase 2, participants had to dock and rank/score a set of small molecules given only the SMILES strings of the ligands and a protein structure with a different ligand bound. Overall, docking was a success for most participants, much better in Phase 2 than in Phase 1. However, scoring was a greater challenge. No particular approach to docking and scoring had an edge, and successful methods included empirical, knowledge-based, machine-learning, shape-fitting, and even those with solvation and entropy terms. Several groups were successful in ranking TrmD and/or SYK, but ranking FXa ligands was intractable for all participants. Methods that were able to dock well across all submitted systems include MDock, Glide-XP, PLANTS, Wilma, Gold, SMINA, Glide-XP/PELE, FlexX, and MedusaDock. In fact, the submission based on Glide-XP/PELE cross-docked all ligands to many crystal structures, and it was particularly impressive to see success across an ensemble of protein structures for multiple targets. For scoring/ranking, submissions that showed statistically significant achievement include MDock using ITScore, with a flexible-ligand term, SMINA using Autodock-Vina,, FlexX using HYDE, and Glide-XP using XP DockScore with and without ROCS shape similarity. Of course, these results are for only three protein targets, and many more systems need to be investigated to truly identify which approaches are more successful than others. Furthermore, our exercise is not a competition

CSAR 2014: A Benchmark Exercise Using Unpublished Data from Pharma

The 2014 CSAR Benchmark Exercise was the last community-wide exercise that was conducted by the group at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. For this event, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) donated unpublished crystal structures and affinity data from in-house projects. Three targets were used: tRNA (m1G37) methyltransferase (TrmD), Spleen Tyrosine Kinase (SYK), and Factor Xa (FXa). A particularly strong feature of the GSK data is its large size, which lends greater statistical significance to comparisons between different methods. In Phase 1 of the CSAR 2014 Exercise, participants were given several protein–ligand complexes and asked to identify the one near-native pose from among 200 decoys provided by CSAR. Though decoys were requested by the community, we found that they complicated our analysis. We could not discern whether poor predictions were failures of the chosen method or an incompatibility between the participant’s method and the setup protocol we used. This problem is inherent to decoys, and we strongly advise against their use. In Phase 2, participants had to dock and rank/score a set of small molecules given only the SMILES strings of the ligands and a protein structure with a different ligand bound. Overall, docking was a success for most participants, much better in Phase 2 than in Phase 1. However, scoring was a greater challenge. No particular approach to docking and scoring had an edge, and successful methods included empirical, knowledge-based, machine-learning, shape-fitting, and even those with solvation and entropy terms. Several groups were successful in ranking TrmD and/or SYK, but ranking FXa ligands was intractable for all participants. Methods that were able to dock well across all submitted systems include MDock, Glide-XP, PLANTS, Wilma, Gold, SMINA, Glide-XP/PELE, FlexX, and MedusaDock. In fact, the submission based on Glide-XP/PELE cross-docked all ligands to many crystal structures, and it was particularly impressive to see success across an ensemble of protein structures for multiple targets. For scoring/ranking, submissions that showed statistically significant achievement include MDock using ITScore, with a flexible-ligand term, SMINA using Autodock-Vina,, FlexX using HYDE, and Glide-XP using XP DockScore with and without ROCS shape similarity. Of course, these results are for only three protein targets, and many more systems need to be investigated to truly identify which approaches are more successful than others. Furthermore, our exercise is not a competition

CSAR 2014: A Benchmark Exercise Using Unpublished Data from Pharma

The 2014 CSAR Benchmark Exercise was the last community-wide exercise that was conducted by the group at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. For this event, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) donated unpublished crystal structures and affinity data from in-house projects. Three targets were used: tRNA (m1G37) methyltransferase (TrmD), Spleen Tyrosine Kinase (SYK), and Factor Xa (FXa). A particularly strong feature of the GSK data is its large size, which lends greater statistical significance to comparisons between different methods. In Phase 1 of the CSAR 2014 Exercise, participants were given several protein–ligand complexes and asked to identify the one near-native pose from among 200 decoys provided by CSAR. Though decoys were requested by the community, we found that they complicated our analysis. We could not discern whether poor predictions were failures of the chosen method or an incompatibility between the participant’s method and the setup protocol we used. This problem is inherent to decoys, and we strongly advise against their use. In Phase 2, participants had to dock and rank/score a set of small molecules given only the SMILES strings of the ligands and a protein structure with a different ligand bound. Overall, docking was a success for most participants, much better in Phase 2 than in Phase 1. However, scoring was a greater challenge. No particular approach to docking and scoring had an edge, and successful methods included empirical, knowledge-based, machine-learning, shape-fitting, and even those with solvation and entropy terms. Several groups were successful in ranking TrmD and/or SYK, but ranking FXa ligands was intractable for all participants. Methods that were able to dock well across all submitted systems include MDock, Glide-XP, PLANTS, Wilma, Gold, SMINA, Glide-XP/PELE, FlexX, and MedusaDock. In fact, the submission based on Glide-XP/PELE cross-docked all ligands to many crystal structures, and it was particularly impressive to see success across an ensemble of protein structures for multiple targets. For scoring/ranking, submissions that showed statistically significant achievement include MDock using ITScore, with a flexible-ligand term, SMINA using Autodock-Vina,, FlexX using HYDE, and Glide-XP using XP DockScore with and without ROCS shape similarity. Of course, these results are for only three protein targets, and many more systems need to be investigated to truly identify which approaches are more successful than others. Furthermore, our exercise is not a competition