Molecular Docking: Methodological Approaches of Risk Assessment
https://doi.org/10.33380/2305-2066-2023-12-2-206-210
Abstract
Introduction. Computational chemistry methods and, particularly, the noncovalent molecular docking are increasingly implemented into the practice of drug development. Previously, a risk management of potential biases did not applied for this relatively young research instrument.
Aim. The study objective was to design the risk assessment system for noncovalent molecular docking.
Materials and methods. The development of bias risk assessment system was based on the world's leading practices in noncovalent molecular docking.
Results and discussions. As a result of the deductive analysis of the molecular docking process, bias domains were identified and a risk-based algorithm was proposed, which was tested on a sample of articles obtained during a systematic review. A tendency to frequent limited provision of information on the methodology of the computational experiment, as well as on the application of practices proven to lead to irrelevant results of molecular docking, has been revealed.
Conclusion. The data obtained cannot be extrapolated to all studies that refer to the results of molecular modeling. However, through the proposed risk-based algorithm, the attention of researchers is focused on assessing the quality of such publications. We hope that the developed tool for bias risk assessment in noncovalent molecular docking will be finalized and eventually put into practice. It will possibly reduce the share of low-quality work in the field of drug development at the earliest stages.
Keywords
Supporting agencies: This work was financed by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation within the framework of state support for the creation and development of World-Class Research Centers "Digital Biodesign and Personalized Healthcare" (No 075-15-2022-305).
About the Authors
A. Kh. Taldaev
Institute of Biomedical Chemistry named after V. N. Orekhovich; A. P. Nelyubin Institute of Pharmacy, I. M. Sechenov First MSMU of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
10/8, Pogodinskaya str., Moscow, 119121;
8/2, Trubetskaya str., Mosсow, 119991
I. D. Nikitin
A. P. Nelyubin Institute of Pharmacy, I. M. Sechenov First MSMU of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
8/2, Trubetskaya str., Mosсow, 119991
R. P. Terekhov
A. P. Nelyubin Institute of Pharmacy, I. M. Sechenov First MSMU of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
8/2, Trubetskaya str., Mosсow, 119991
I. A. Selivanova
A. P. Nelyubin Institute of Pharmacy, I. M. Sechenov First MSMU of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
8/2, Trubetskaya str., Mosсow, 119991
References
1. Terekhov R. P., Nikitin I. D., Taldaev A. Kh., Selivanova I. A. Computer modeling of the interaction between flavonoids and biological targets. Pharmaceutical Business and Drug Technology. 2021;2:24–36. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.33920/med-13-2102-01.
2. Kumar A., Zhang K. Y. J. Hierarchical virtual screening approaches in small molecule drug discovery. Methods. 2015;71(1):26–37. DOI: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2014.07.007.
3. Onufriev A. V., Alexov E. Protonation and pK changes in protein–ligand binding. Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics. 2013;46(2):181–209. DOI: 10.1017/S0033583513000024.
4. Vieth M., Hirst J. D., Brooks C. L. Do active site conformations of small ligands correspond to low free-energy solution structures? Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design. 1998;12:563–572. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008055202136.
5. Höltje H.-D., Sippl W., Rognan D., Folkers G. Molecular Modeling: Basic Principles and Applications. 3rd Edition. New Jersey: Wiley-VCH; 2008. 320 p.
6. Billeter M. Comparison of protein structures determined by NMR in solution and by X-ray diffraction in single crystals. Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics. 1992;25(3):325–377. DOI: 10.1017/S0033583500004261.
7. Lohning A. E., Levonis S. M., Williams-Noonan B., Schweiker S. S. A Practical Guide to Molecular Docking and Homology Modelling for Medicinal Chemists. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry. 2017;17(18):2023–2040. DOI: 10.2174/1568026617666170130110827.
8. Riccardi L., Genna V., de Vivo M. Metal–ligand interactions in drug design. Nature Reviews Chemistry. 2018;2:100-112. DOI: 10.1038/s41570-018-0018-6.
9. Kim M. O., Nichols S. E., Wang Y., McCammon J. A. Effects of histidine protonation and rotameric states on virtual screening of M. tuberculosis RmlC. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design. 2013;27(3):235–246. DOI: 10.1007/s10822-013-9643-9.
10. Chen Y.-C. Beware of docking! Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. 2015;36(2):78–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.tips.2014.12.001.
11. Bender B. J., Gahbauer S., Luttens A., Lyu J., Webb C. M., Stein R. M., Fink E. A., Balius E. A., Balius T. E., Carlsson J., Irwin J. J., Shoichet B. K. A practical guide to large-scale docking. Nature Protocols. 2021;16:4799–4832. DOI: 10.1038/s41596-021-00597-z.
12. Macip G., Garcia-Segura P., Mastres-Truyol J., Saldivar-Espinoza B., Ojeda-Montes M. J., Gimeno A., Cereto-Massagué A., Garcia-Vallvé S., Pujadas G. Haste makes waste: A critical review of docking-based virtual screening in drug repurposing for SARS-CoV-2 main protease (M-pro) inhibition. Medicinal Research Reviews. 2022;42(2):744–769. DOI: 10.1002/med.21862.
Supplementary files
|
|
1. Графический абстракт | |
| Subject | ||
| Type | Исследовательские инструменты | |
View
(1011KB)
|
Indexing metadata ▾ | |
Review
For citations:
Taldaev A.Kh., Nikitin I.D., Terekhov R.P., Selivanova I.A. Molecular Docking: Methodological Approaches of Risk Assessment. Drug development & registration. 2023;12(2):206-210. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33380/2305-2066-2023-12-2-206-210
Views:
1310
Email this article 