4.7 Article

Vina-Carb: Improving Glycosidic Angles during Carbohydrate Docking

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL THEORY AND COMPUTATION
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 892-901

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00834

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [GM094919, R01 GM100058, P41 GM103390]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular docking programs are primarily designed to align rigid, drug-like fragments into the binding sites of macromolecules and frequently display poor performance when applied to flexible carbohydrate molecules. A critical source of flexibility within an oligosaccharide is the glycosidic linkages. Recently, Carbohydrate Intrinsic (CHI) energy functions were reported that attempt to quantify the glycosidic torsion angle preferences. In the present work, the CHI-energy functions have been incorporated into the AutoDock Vina (ADV) scoring function, subsequently termed Vina-Carb (VC). Two user adjustable parameters have been introduced, namely, a CHI- energy weight term (chi_coeff) that affects the magnitude of the CHI-energy penalty and a CHI-cutoff term (chi_cutoff) that negates CHI-energy penalties below a specified value. A data set consisting of 101 protein carbohydrate complexes and 29 apoprotein structures was used in the development and testing of VC, including antibodies, lectins, and carbohydrate binding modules. Accounting for the intramolecular energies of the glycosidic linkages in the oligosaccharides during docking led VC to produce acceptable structures within the top five ranked poses in 74% of the systems tested, compared to a success rate of 55% for ADV. An enzyme system was employed in order to illustrate the potential application of VC to proteins that may distort glycosidic linkages of carbohydrate ligands upon binding. VC represents a significant step toward accurately predicting the structures of protein carbohydrate complexes. Furthermore, the described approach is conceptually applicable to any class of ligands that populate well-defined conformational states.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据