Outcome of the First wwPDB/CCDC/D3R Ligand Validation Workshop.

Crystallographic studies of ligands bound to biological macromolecules (proteins and nucleic acids) represent an important source of information concerning drug-target interactions, providing atomic level insights into the physical chemistry of complex formation between macromolecules and ligands. Of the more than 115,000 entries extant in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) archive, ∼75% include at least one non-polymeric ligand. Ligand geometrical and stereochemical quality, the suitability of ligand models for in silico drug discovery and design, and the goodness-of-fit of ligand models to electron-density maps vary widely across the archive. We describe the proceedings and conclusions from the first Worldwide PDB/Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center/Drug Design Data Resource (wwPDB/CCDC/D3R) Ligand Validation Workshop held at the Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics at Rutgers University on July 30-31, 2015. Experts in protein crystallography from academe and industry came together with non-profit and for-profit software providers for crystallography and with experts in computational chemistry and data archiving to discuss and make recommendations on best practices, as framed by a series of questions central to structural studies of macromolecule-ligand complexes. What data concerning bound ligands should be archived in the PDB? How should the ligands be best represented? How should structural models of macromolecule-ligand complexes be validated? What supplementary information should accompany publications of structural studies of biological macromolecules? Consensus recommendations on best practices developed in response to each of these questions are provided, together with some details regarding implementation. Important issues addressed but not resolved at the workshop are also enumerated.The workshop was supported by funding to RCSB PDB by the National Science Foundation (DBI 1338415); PDBe by the Wellcome Trust (104948); PDBj by JST-NBDC; BMRB by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM109046); D3R by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM111528); registration fees from industrial participants; and tax-deductible donations to the wwPDB Foundation by the Genentech Foundation and the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Cell Press via https://doi.org//10.1016/j.str.2016.02.01

Outcome of the First wwPDB/CCDC/D3R Ligand Validation Workshop

Crystallographic studies of ligands bound to biological macromolecules (proteins and nucleic acids) represent an important source of information concerning drug-target interactions, providing atomic level insights into the physical chemistry of complex formation between macromolecules and ligands. Of the more than 115,000 entries extant in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) archive, ∼75% include at least one non-polymeric ligand. Ligand geometrical and stereochemical quality, the suitability of ligand models for in silico drug discovery and design, and the goodness-of-fit of ligand models to electron-density maps vary widely across the archive. We describe the proceedings and conclusions from the first Worldwide PDB/Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center/Drug Design Data Resource (wwPDB/CCDC/D3R) Ligand Validation Workshop held at the Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics at Rutgers University on July 30–31, 2015. Experts in protein crystallography from academe and industry came together with non-profit and for-profit software providers for crystallography and with experts in computational chemistry and data archiving to discuss and make recommendations on best practices, as framed by a series of questions central to structural studies of macromolecule-ligand complexes. What data concerning bound ligands should be archived in the PDB? How should the ligands be best represented? How should structural models of macromolecule-ligand complexes be validated? What supplementary information should accompany publications of structural studies of biological macromolecules? Consensus recommendations on best practices developed in response to each of these questions are provided, together with some details regarding implementation. Important issues addressed but not resolved at the workshop are also enumerated.This is the publisher’s final pdf. The published article is copyrighted by Elsevier (Cell Press) and can be found at: http://www.cell.com/structure/hom

Tools for the automatic identification and classification of RNA base pairs

Three programs have been developed to aid in the classification and visualization of RNA structure. BPViewer provides a web interface for displaying three-dimensional (3D) coordinates of individual base pairs or base pair collections. A web server, RNAview, automatically identifies and classifies the types of base pairs that are formed in nucleic acid structures by various combinations of the three edges, Watson–Crick, Hoogsteen and the Sugar edge. RNAView produces two-dimensional (2D) diagrams of secondary and tertiary structure in either Postscript, VRML or RNAML formats. The application RNAMLview can be used to rearrange various parts of the RNAView 2D diagram to generate a standard representation (like the cloverleaf structure of tRNAs) or any layout desired by the user. A 2D diagram can be rapidly reformatted using RNAMLview since all the parts of RNA (like helices and single strands) are dynamically linked while moving the selected parts. With the base pair annotation and the 2D graphic display, RNA motifs are rapidly identified and classified. A survey has been carried out for 41 unique structures selected from the NDB database. The statistics for the occurrence of each edge and of each of the 12 bp families are given for the combinations of the four bases: A, G, U and C. The program also allows for visualization of the base pair interactions by using a symbolic convention previously proposed for base pairs. The web servers for BPViewer and RNAview are available at http://ndbserver.rutgers.edu/services/. The application RNAMLview can also be downloaded from this site. The 2D diagrams produced by RNAview are available for RNA structures in the Nucleic Acid Database (NDB) at http://ndbserver.rutgers.edu/atlas/

Self-grooming

Self-grooming in each experimental group

D3R Grand Challenge 3: Blind Prediction of Protein-Ligand Poses and Affinity Rankings

The Drug Design Data Resource aims to test and advance the state of the art in protein-ligand modeling, by holding community-wide blinded, prediction challenges. Here, we report on our third major round, Grand Challenge 3 (GC3). Held 2017-2018, GC3 centered on the protein Cathepsin S and the kinases VEGFR2, JAK2, p38-α, TIE2, and ABL1; and included both pose- prediction and affinity-ranking components. GC3 was structured much like the prior challenges GC2015 and GC2. First, Stage 1 tested pose prediction and affinity ranking methods; then all available crystal structures were released, and Stage 2 tested only affinity rankings, now in the context of the available structures. Unique to GC3 was the addition of a Stage 1b self-docking sub-challenge, in which the protein coordinates from all of the co-crystal structures used in the cross-docking challenge were released, and participants were asked to predict the pose of CatS ligands using these newly released structures. We provide an overview of the outcomes and discuss insights into trends and best-practices.</div

Trendspotting in the Protein Data Bank

The Protein Data Bank (PDB) was established in 1971 as a repository for the three dimensional structures of biological macromolecules. Since then, more than 85000 biological macromolecule structures have been determined and made available in the PDB archive. Through analysis of the corpus of data, it is possible to identify trends that can be used to inform us abou the future of structural biology and to plan the best ways to improve the management of the ever-growing amount of PDB data

D3R Grand Challenge 4: Blind Prediction of Protein-Ligand Poses, Affinity Rankings, and Relative Binding Free Energies

The Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) aims to identify best practice methods for computer aided drug design through blinded ligand pose prediction and affinity challenges. Herein, we report on the results of Grand Challenge 4 (GC4). GC4 focused on proteins beta secretase 1 and Cathepsin S, and was run in an analogous manner to prior challenges. In Stage 1, participant ability to predict the pose and affinity of BACE1 ligands were assessed. Following the completion of Stage 1, all BACE1 co-crystal structures were released, and Stage 2 tested affinity rankings with co-crystal structures. We provide an analysis of the results and discuss insights into determined best practice methods.</div

D3R grand challenge 4: blind prediction of protein–ligand poses, affinity rankings, and relative binding free energies

The Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) aims to identify best practice methods for computer aided drug design through blinded ligand pose prediction and affinity challenges. Herein, we report on the results of Grand Challenge 4 (GC4). GC4 focused on proteins beta secretase 1 and Cathepsin S, and was run in an analogous manner to prior challenges. In Stage 1, participant ability to predict the pose and affinity of BACE1 ligands were assessed. Following the completion of Stage 1, all BACE1 co-crystal structures were released, and Stage 2 tested affinity rankings with co-crystal structures. We provide an analysis of the results and discuss insights into determined best practice methods