Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

A Review on Molecular Docking: Methodology and Importance

Nidhi Aggarwal

Abstract


Molecular docking is becoming a more important method in drug development. We provide a brief overview of the known molecular docking approaches, as well as their development and uses in pharmaceutical research. The important core theories are summarised, including sampling techniques and grading systems. The variations between accessible docking software and their effectiveness are also explored. Flexible receptor docking studies strategies, which include receptor backbone mobility, prove problematic to presently offered docking methods. A new Local Move Monte Carlo (LMMC)-based approach is offered as a viable solution to the docking issues of flexibility sensors. There are instances of how molecular docking techniques for drug development can be used.


Keywords


Molecular, Docking, Techniques, Receptors, Software

Full Text:

PDF

References


Jorgensen WL. The many roles of computation in drug discovery. Science. 2004; 303 (5665): 1813–1818.

Bajorath J. Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2002; 1 (11): 882–894.

Walters WP, Stahl MT, Murcko MA. Virtual screening - an overview. Drug Discov. Today. 1998; 3: 160–178.

Langer T, Hoffmann RD. Virtual screening: an effective tool for lead structure discovery? Curr Pharm Des. 2001; 7 (7): 509–527.

Kitchen DB, Decornez H, Furr JR, et al. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004; 3 (11): 935–949.

Gohlke H, Klebe G. Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2002; 41 (15): 2644–2676.

Moitessier N, Englebienne P, Lee D, et al. Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go. Br J Pharmacol. 2008; 153 (Suppl 1): S7–26.

Shoichet BK, McGovern SL, Wei B, et al. Hits, leads and artifacts from virtual and high throughput screening. 2002. Molecular Informatics: Confronting Complexity.

Bailey D, Brown D. High-throughput chemistry and structure-based design: survival of the smartest. Drug Discov Today. 2001; 6 (2): 57–59.

Kuntz ID, Blaney JM, Oatley SJ, et al. A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol. 1982; 161 (2): 269–288.

Halperin I, Ma B, Wolfson H, et al. Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins. 2002; 47 (4): 409–443.

Coupez B, Lewis RA. Docking and scoring--theoretically easy, practically impossible? Curr Med Chem. 2006; 13 (25): 2995–3003.

Kontoyianni M, Madhav P, Suchanek E, et al. Theoretical and practical considerations in virtual screening: a beaten field? Curr Med Chem. 2008; 15 (2): 107–116.

Brooijmans N, Kuntz ID. Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct. 2003; 32: 335–373.

ten Brink T, Exner TE. Influence of protonation, tautomeric, and stereoisomeric states on protein-ligand docking results. J Chem Inf Model. 2009; 49 (6): 1535–1546.

Cross JB, Thompson DC, Rai BK, et al. Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy. J Chem Inf Model. 2009; 49 (6): 1455–1474.

Li X, Li Y, Cheng T, et al. Evaluation of the performance of four molecular docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes. J Comput Chem. 2010; 31 (11): 2109–2125.

Plewczynski D, Lazniewski M, Augustyniak R, et al. Can we trust docking results? Evaluation of seven commonly used programs on PDBbind database. J Comput Chem. 2010

McConkey BJ, Sobolev V, Edelman M. The performance of current methods in ligand-protein docking. Current Science. 2002; 83: 845–855.

Goodford PJ. A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. J Med Chem. 1985; 28 (7): 849–857.

Kastenholz MA, Pastor M, Cruciani G, et al. GRID/CPCA: a new computational tool to design selective ligands. J Med Chem. 2000; 43 (16): 3033–3044.

Levitt DG, Banaszak LJ. POCKET: a computer graphics method for identifying and displaying protein cavities and their surrounding amino acids. J Mol Graph. 1992; 10 (4): 229–234.

Laskowski RA. SURFNET: a program for visualizing molecular surfaces, cavities, and intermolecular interactions. J Mol Graph. 1995; 13 (5): 323–330. 307–328.

Glaser F, Morris RJ, Najmanovich RJ, et al. A method for localizing ligand binding pockets in protein structures. Proteins. 2006; 62 (2): 479–488.

Brady GP, Stouten PF. Fast prediction and visualization of protein binding pockets with PASS. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2000; 14 (4): 383–401.

Mezei M. A new method for mapping macromolecular topography. J Mol Graph Model. 2003; 21 (5): 463–472.

Fischer E. Einfluss der configuration auf die wirkung derenzyme. Ber. Dt. Chem. Ges. 1894; 27: 2985–2993.

Koshland DE. Correlation of Structure and Function in Enzyme Action. Science. 1963; 142: 1533–1541.

Hammes GG. Multiple conformational changes in enzyme catalysis. Biochemistry. 2002; 41 (26): 8221–8228.

Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T, et al. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol. 1996; 261 (3):470–489.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.37628/ijmb.v8i1.756

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.