Biomedical subjects

Jay L Banks

Publications and source records attributed to Jay L Banks.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Integrated Modeling Program, Applied Chemical Theory (IMPACT).

We provide an overview of the IMPACT molecular mechanics program with an emphasis on recent developments and a description of its current functionality. With respect to core molecular mechanics technologies we include a status report for the fixed charge and polarizable force fields that can be used with the program and illustrate how the force fields, when used together with new atom typing and parameter assignment modules, have greatly expanded the coverage of organic compounds and medicinally relevant ligands. As we discuss in this review, explicit solvent simulations have been used to guide our design of implicit solvent models based on the generalized Born framework and a novel nonpolar estimator that have recently been incorporated into the program. With IMPACT it is possible to use several different advanced conformational sampling algorithms based on combining features of molecular dynamics and Monte Carlo simulations. The program includes two specialized molecular mechanics modules: Glide, a high-throughput docking program, and QSite, a mixed quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics module. These modules employ the IMPACT infrastructure as a starting point for the construction of the protein model and assignment of molecular mechanics parameters, but have then been developed to meet specialized objectives with respect to sampling and the energy function.

Computer Simulation↗

PubMed2004

Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy.

Unlike other methods for docking ligands to the rigid 3D structure of a known protein receptor, Glide approximates a complete systematic search of the conformational, orientational, and positional space of the docked ligand. In this search, an initial rough positioning and scoring phase that dramatically narrows the search space is followed by torsionally flexible energy optimization on an OPLS-AA nonbonded potential grid for a few hundred surviving candidate poses. The very best candidates are further refined via a Monte Carlo sampling of pose conformation; in some cases, this is crucial to obtaining an accurate docked pose. Selection of the best docked pose uses a model energy function that combines empirical and force-field-based terms. Docking accuracy is assessed by redocking ligands from 282 cocrystallized PDB complexes starting from conformationally optimized ligand geometries that bear no memory of the correctly docked pose. Errors in geometry for the top-ranked pose are less than 1 A in nearly half of the cases and are greater than 2 A in only about one-third of them. Comparisons to published data on rms deviations show that Glide is nearly twice as accurate as GOLD and more than twice as accurate as FlexX for ligands having up to 20 rotatable bonds. Glide is also found to be more accurate than the recently described Surflex method.

Binding Sites↗

PubMed2004

Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening.

Glide's ability to identify active compounds in a database screen is characterized by applying Glide to a diverse set of nine protein receptors. In many cases, two, or even three, protein sites are employed to probe the sensitivity of the results to the site geometry. To make the database screens as realistic as possible, the screens use sets of "druglike" decoy ligands that have been selected to be representative of what we believe is likely to be found in the compound collection of a pharmaceutical or biotechnology company. Results are presented for releases 1.8, 2.0, and 2.5 of Glide. The comparisons show that average measures for both "early" and "global" enrichment for Glide 2.5 are 3 times higher than for Glide 1.8 and more than 2 times higher than for Glide 2.0 because of better results for the least well-handled screens. This improvement in enrichment stems largely from the better balance of the more widely parametrized GlideScore 2.5 function and the inclusion of terms that penalize ligand-protein interactions that violate established principles of physical chemistry, particularly as it concerns the exposure to solvent of charged protein and ligand groups. Comparisons to results for the thymidine kinase and estrogen receptors published by Rognan and co-workers (J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 4759-4767) show that Glide 2.5 performs better than GOLD 1.1, FlexX 1.8, or DOCK 4.01.

Binding Sites↗