Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5364_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
8 Drug Design in Motion: Concepts and Applications of Classical... 233
6 Concluding Remarks and Outlook
The addressed above in silico drug design approaches fall into two main categories:
one focuses on comprehending the processes and subprocesses involved in disease
development, and the other offers brand-new methods for disease intervention. In
other words, the first is the use of computing to aid in elucidating the molecular
mechanisms underlying abnormal biological processes. Specifically, locating previously undiscovered biomolecular events that might be connected to the pathophysiological mechanisms in potentially curable diseases, determining the ligand binding
mode at a particular binding site with potential modulation of a protein’s function for
a specific circumstance, and investigating the mutational consequences related to
disease progression.
It is important to emphasise additional issues that can be accomplished with the in
silico approach while addressing the second point of new molecular strategy identification. These include the design of novel and highly selective drugs via virtual
screening campaigns combined with experimental techniques; prediction and simultaneous optimisation of biopharmaceutical properties, such as solubility and toxicity
predictions; discovery of novel and potentially druggable protein pockets. In addition, the stabilisation of a specific protein substructure or residue that encourages
system-specific interactions can be used for drug development employing ligand
feature identification. Providing the knowledge that fills the understanding gaps, in
silico methods emphasise the development of new therapeutics as composed of
minor details, each of which contributes to the broader picture.
Originally, one major drawback from MD application lied on the resources, as not
every research group could afford a supercomputer. In recent years, the
popularisation of multi-CPU clusters hosted by supercomputer centres give access
to both infrastructure and expertise. The expansion of GPU-developed code
sky-rockets the timescales from short nanoseconds to several milliseconds, with
tera-scale performances on GPU clusters. However, one point that still lags is the
experimental design and interpretation of the MD simulation. The relevance of
interdisciplinary teams in deciding which systems are biologically/pharmacologically relevant to be simulated cannot be overstated. We hoped to illustrate some
examples of analyses and comparative discussions along this chapter while providing a solid base for the MD interpretation.
Questions to answer when planning a MD
Do you plan to observe small molecules or domain’s movements? Be mindful of your timescale.
Does your recording time allow you to capture the required transitions, and do you have enough
storage for those trajectories?
Given your available computational resources, what is the largest number of replicas per system
you could generate?
Do you provide clear reference points (sequences and secondary structures) and definitions for
your analyses to ensure reproducibility?
Do you provide clear parametrisation, force-field definitions, and meta data to allow reproduction
of your simulations?
234 E. Shevchenko et al.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge CSC—IT Center for Science, Finland, for
the very generous computational resources provided in multiple of the examples cited within this
chapter, as well as their striking enthusiasm in discussing scientific matters with our group. T.K., E.
S., and A.P. are funded by the TüCAD2 and CMIF. TüCAD2 and CMIF are funded by the Federal
Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Science as
part of the Excellence Strategy of the German Federal and State Governments. S.L. and T.K. would
like to acknowledge the cluster of Excellence iFIT (EXC 2180) “Image-Guided and Functionally
Instructed Tumor Therapies”.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or
personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this chapter.
Glossary
Free energy of binding within the context of ligand–protein complexes in drug
design, the free energy of binding is defined as the free energy difference between
the ligand-bound state (complex) and the free unbound states (free protein and
free ligand).
Periodic boundary condition (PBC) is a method used in MD simulations to
eliminate the issues concerning boundary effects, arising from finite size, by
treating the system as infinite with the help of a unit cell.
Stochastic algorithms is a sampling method that incorporates random changes to
the ligand in transitional, rotational, and conformational space to identify the
most suitable ligand binding conformation.
Systematic search is a sampling method that utilises all degrees of freedom to
sample the ligand-binding conformations.
Central processing unit (CPU) is the core processing unit of a computer that
performs general-purpose computations required for various tasks, including
molecular modelling. In molecular dynamics simulations, the CPU is traditionally
used to handle complex calculations involving force fields, energy minimisation,
trajectory analysis, and traditional docking protocols.
Graphics processing unit (GPU) is a specialised hardware unit designed for
accelerating graphics rendering. In molecular modelling, GPUs have gained
significant prominence due to their parallel proces sing capabilities. They are
particularly advantageous for running computationally intensive tasks, such as
molecular dynamics simulations.
8 Drug Design in Motion: Concepts and Applications of Classical... 235
References
1. Prieto-Martínez, F. D., López-López, E., Eurídice Juárez-Mercado, K., & Medina-Franco,
J. L. (2019). Chapter 2: Computational drug design methods—Current and future perspectives.
In K. Roy (Ed.), In Silico drug design (pp. 19–44). Academic Press.
2. Behr, J P. (1994) Perspectives in Supramolecular Chemistry: The Lock‐and‐Key Principle.
Volume I (p. 30). Wiley.
3. Schneider, H.-J. (2003). Introduction to molecular recognition models. In Protein-ligand
interactions (pp. 21–50). Wiley.
4. Osakwe, O. (2016). Chapter 5: The significance of discovery screening and structure optimization studies. In O. Osakwe & S. A. A. Rizvi (Eds.), Social aspects of drug discovery,
development and commercialization (pp. 109–128). Academic.
5. Klebe, G. (2013). Protein modeling and structure-based drug design. In G. Klebe (Ed.), Drug
design: Methodology, concepts, and mode-of-action (pp. 429–448). Springer.
6. Jumper, J., et al. (2021). Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature,
596, 583–589.
7. Levitt, D. G., & Banaszak, L. J. (1992). POCKET: A computer graphics method for identifying and displaying protein cavities and their surrounding amino acids. Journal of Molecular
Graphics, 10, 229–234.
8. Brady, G. P., & Stouten, P. F. (2000). Fast prediction and visualization of protein binding
pockets with PASS. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 14, 383–401.
9. Hendlich, M., Rippmann, F., & Barnickel, G. (1997). LIGSITE: Automatic and efficient
detection of potential small molecule-binding sites in proteins. Journal of Molecular Graphics
& Modelling, 15, 359–363, 389.
10. Huang, B., & Schroeder, M. (2006). LIGSITEcsc: Predicting ligand binding sites using the
Connolly surface and degree of conservation. BMC Structural Biology, 6, 19.
11. Halgren, T. (2007). New method for fast and accurate binding-site identification and analysis.
Chemical Biology & Drug Design, 69, 146–148.
12. Halgren, T. A. (2009). Identifying and characterizing binding sites and assessing Druggability.
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 49, 377–389.
13. Opo, F. A. D. M., et al. (2021). Structure based pharmacophore modeling, virtual screening,
molecular docking and ADMET approaches for identification of natural anti-cancer agents
targeting XIAP protein. Scienti fic Reports, 11, 4049.
14. Levitt, M., & Lifson, S. (1969). Refinement of protein conformations using a macromolecular
energy minimization procedure. Journal of Molecular Biology, 46, 269–279.
15. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2013. NobelPrize.org. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/
chemistry/2013/karplus/facts/
16. Levitt, M., & Warshel, A. (1975). Computer simulation of protein folding. Nature, 253,
694–698.
17. Warshel, A., & Levitt, M. (1976). Theoretical studies of enzymic reactions: Dielectric,
electrostatic and steric stabilization of the carbonium ion in the reaction of lysozyme. Journal
of Molecular Biology, 103, 227–249.
18. McCammon, J. A., Gelin, B. R., & Karplus, M. (1977). Dynamics of folded proteins. Nature,
267, 585–590.
19. Smith, B. (1989). Dynamics of proteins and nucleic acids: By JA McCammon and SC Harvey.
p 234. Cambridge University Press, NY. 1987. $19.95 (pbk). Biochemical Education, 17, 220.
20. Karplus, M., & Petsko, G. A. (1990). Molecular dynamics simulations in biology. Nature, 347,
631–639.
21. Frauenfelder, H., Sligar, S. G., & Wolynes, P. G. (1991). The energy landscapes and motions
of proteins. Science, 254, 1598–1603.
22. York, D. M., Darden, T. A., & Pedersen, L. G. (1993). The effect of long‐range electrostatic
interactions in simulations of macromolecular crystals: A comparison of the Ewald and
truncated list methods. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 99, 8345–8348.
236 E. Shevchenko et al.
23. Pearlman, D. A., et al. (1995). AMBER, a package of computer programs for applying
molecular mechanics, normal mode analysis, molecular dynamics and free energy calculations
to simulate the structural and energetic properties of molecules. Computer Physics Commu-
nications, 91,1–41.
24. Berendsen, H. J. C., van der Spoel, D., & van Drunen, R. (1995). GROMACS: A messagepassing parallel molecular dynamics implementation. Computer Physics Communications, 91,
43–56.
25. Humphrey, W., Dalke, A., & Schulten, K. (1996). VMD: Visual molecular dynamics. Journal
of Molecular Graphics, 14,33–38, 27–33–38, 28.
26. Bowers, K. J., et al. (2006). Scalable algorithms for molecular dynamics simulations on
commodity clusters. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE conference on supercomputing
84-es. Association for Computing Machinery.
27. Klauda, J. B., et al. (2010). Update of the CHARMM all-atom additive force Field for lipids:
Validation on six lipid types. The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B, 114, 7830–7843.
28. Harder, E., et al. (2016). OPLS3: A force Field providing broad coverage of drug-like small
molecules and proteins. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 12, 281– 296.
29. Roos, K., et al. (2019). OPLS3e: Extending force Field coverage for drug-like small molecules. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 15, 1863–1874.
30. Lu, C., et al. (2021). OPLS4: Improving force Field accuracy on challenging regimes of
chemical space. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 17, 4291–4300.
31. Feig, M., & Brooks, C. L. (2004). Recent advances in the development and application of
implicit solvent models in biomolecule simulations. Current Opinion in Structural Biology,
14, 217–224.
32. Senn, H. M., & Thiel, W. (2009). QM/MM methods for biomolecular systems. Angewandte
Chemie, International Edition, 48, 1198–1229.
33. Lin, H., & Truhlar, D. G. (2007). QM/MM: What have we learned, where are we, and where
do we go from here? Theoretical Chemistry Accounts, 117, 185–199.
34. Cavalli, A., Bottegoni, G., Raco, C., De Vivo, M., & Recanatini, M. (2004). A computational
study of the binding of Propidium to the peripheral anionic site of human Acetylcholinesterase.
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 47, 3991–3999.
35. Robustelli, P., et al. (2022). Molecular basis of small-molecule binding to α-Synuclein.
Journal of the American Chemical Society, 144, 2501–2510.
36. Dror, R. O., Jensen, M. Ø., Borhani, D. W., & Shaw, D. E. (2010). Exploring atomic resolution
physiology on a femtosecond to millisecond timescale using molecular dynamics simulations.
The Journal of General Physiology, 135, 555–562.
37. Shan, Y., et al. (2022). How does a small molecule bind at a cryptic binding site? PLoS
Computational Biology, 18, e1009817.
38. Mysore, V. P., et al. (2021). A structural model of a Ras–Raf signalosome. Nature Structural
& Molecular Biology, 28, 847–
39. Wang, Y., Lupala, C. S., Liu, H., & Lin, X. (2018). Identification of drug binding sites and
action mechanisms with molecular dynamics simulations. Current Topics in Medicinal Chem-
istry, 18, 2268–2277.
40. Marrink, S. J., Risselada, H. J., Yefimov, S., Tieleman, D. P., & de Vries, A. H. (2007). The
MARTINI force Field: Coarse grained model for biomolecular simulations. The Journal of
Physical Chemistry. B, 111, 7812–7824.
41. Heinz, H., Koerner, H., Anderson, K. L., Vaia, R. A., & Farmer, B. L. (2005). Force Field for
mica-type silicates and dynamics of Octadecylammonium chains grafted to Montmorillonite.
Chemistry of Materials, 17, 5658–5669.
42. Chaudhuri, G., & Gupta, S. D. (2007). Specific heat and bimodality in canonical and grand
canonical versions of the thermodynamic model. Phys. Rev. C, 76, 014619.
43. Dunkel, J., & Hilbert, S. (2006). Phase transitions in small systems:
Microcanonical vs. canonical ensembles. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applica-
tions, 370, 390–406.
857.
8 Drug Design in Motion: Concepts and Applications of Classical... 237
44. Gao, X. (2022). The mathematics of the ensemble theory. Results in Physics, 34, 105230.
45. Appendix, H. (2002). Statistical mechanics of the Gibbs “ensemble”. In D. Frenkel & B. Smit
(Eds.), Understanding molecular simulation (2nd ed., pp. 563–571). Academic.
46. Kurzweil, R. (2006). Keynote speech: Raymond Kurzweil. In Proceedings of the 2006
ACM/IEEE conference on supercomputing 0-es. Association for Computing Machinery.
47. Desmond User Manual. 178.
48. Chan, W. K. B., Carlson, H. A., & Traynor, J. R. (2023). Application of mixed-solvent
molecular dynamics simulations for prediction of allosteric sites on G-protein-coupled receptors. Molecular Pharmacology.
49. Lin, F.-Y., & MacKerell, A. D. (2019). Force fields for small molecules. Methods in Molecular
Biology (Clifton NJ), 2022,21–54.
50. Appendix, A. (2002). Equations of motion from the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian. In D. Frenkel
& B. Smit (Eds.), Understanding molecular simulation (2nd ed., pp. 481–494). Academic.
51. Jorgensen, W. L., & Tirado-Rives, J. (2005). Potential energy functions for atomic-level
simulations of water and organic and biomolecular systems. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 102, 6665–6670.
52. Guvench, O., & MacKerell, A. D. (2008). Comparison of protein force fields for molecular
dynamics simulations. In A. Kukol (Ed.), Molecular modeling of proteins (pp. 63–88).
Humana Press.
53. Ponder, J. W., & Case, D. A. (2003). Force fields for protein simulations. In Advances in
protein chemistry (Vol. 66, pp. 27–85). Academic.
54. Jorgensen, W. L., Maxwell, D. S., & Tirado-Rives, J. (1996). Development and testing of the
OPLS all-atom force Field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids.
Journal of the American Chemical Society, 118, 11225–11236.
55. Salomon-Ferrer, R., Case, D. A., & Walker, R. C. (2013). An overview of the Amber
biomolecular simulation package. WIREs Computational Molecular Science, 3, 198–210.
56. Case, D. A., et al. (2005). The Amber biomolecular simulation programs. Journal of Compu-
tational Chemistry, 26, 1668–1688.
57. Lee, J., et al. (2020). CHARMM-GUI supports the Amber force fields. The Journal of
Chemical Physics, 153, 035103.
58. Christen, M., et al. (2005). The GROMOS software for biomolecular simulation:
GROMOS05. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 26, 1719–1751.
59. Tian, C., et al. (2020). ff19SB: Amino-acid-specific protein backbone parameters trained
against quantum mechanics energy surfaces in solution. Journal of Chemical Theory and
Computation, 16, 528–552.
60. Lindorff-Larsen, K., et al. (2010). Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber
ff99SB protein force
61. Dickson, C. J., Walker, R. C., & Gould, I. R. (2022). Lipid21: Complex lipid membrane
simulations with AMBER. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 18, 1726– 1736.
62. Galindo-Murillo, R., et al. (2016). Assessing the current state of Amber force Field modifications for DNA. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 12, 4114–4127.
63. Zgarbová, M., et al. (2011). Refinement of the Cornell et al. nucleic acids force Field based on
reference quantum chemical calculations of Glycosidic torsion profiles. Journal of Chemical
Theory and Computation, 7, 2886–2902.
64. MacKerell, A. D., et al. (1998). All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and
dynamics studies of proteins. The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B, 102, 3586–3616.
65. Brooks, B. R., et al. (2009). CHARMM: The biomolecular simulation program. Journal of
Computational Chemistry, 30, 1545–1614.
66. Reif, M. M., Hünenberger, P. H., & Oostenbrink, C. (2012). New interaction parameters for
charged amino acid side chains in the GROMOS force Field. Journal of Chemical Theory and
Computation, 8, 3705–3723.
67. Halgren, T. A., & Nachbar, R. B. (1996). Merck molecular force field. IV. Conformational
energies and geometries for MMFF94. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 17, 587–615.
field. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 78, 1950–1958.
238 E. Shevchenko et al.
68. Halgren, T. A. (1999). MMFF VI MMFF94s option for energy minimization studies. Journal
of Computational Chemistry, 20, 720–729.
69. Rappe, A. K., Casewit, C. J., Colwell, K. S., Goddard, W. A. I., & Skiff, W. M. (1992). UFF, a
full periodic table force field for molecular mechanics and molecular dynamics simulations.
Journal of the American Chemical Society, 114, 10024–10035.
70. Hahn, D. F., Gapsys, V., Groot, B. L. de, Mobley, D. L. & Tresadern, G. J. (2023). Current
state of open source force fields in protein-ligand binding affinity predictions. Preprint at
71. Wu, J. C., Chattree, G., & Ren, P. (2012). Automation of AMOEBA polarizable force field
parameterization for small molecules. Theoretical Chemistry Accounts, 131, 1138.
72. Jing, Z., et al. (2019). Polarizable force fields for biomolecular simulations: Recent advances
and applications. Annual Review of Biophysics, 48, 371–394.
73. Li, H., et al. (2017). Drude polarizable force Field for molecular dynamics simulations of
saturated and unsaturated Zwitterionic lipids. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation,
13, 4535–4552.
74. Jiang, W., et al. (2011). High-performance scalable molecular dynamics simulations of a
polarizable force Field based on classical Drude oscillators in NAMD. Journal of Physical
Chemistry Letters, 2,87–92.
75. Dunn, W. L. (1981). Inverse Monte Carlo analysis. Journal of Computational Physics, 41,
154–166.
76. Dodda, L. S., Cabeza de Vaca, I., Tirado-Rives, J., Jorgensen, W. L., & LigParGen web server:
an automatic OPLS-AA parameter generator for organic ligands. (2017). Nucleic Acids
Research, 45, W331–W336.
77. Decherchi, S., Bottegoni, G., Spitaleri, A., Rocchia, W., & Cavalli, A. (2018). BiKi life
sciences: A new suite for molecular dynamics and related methods in drug discovery. Journal
of Chemical Information and Modeling, 58, 219–224.
78. Huang, L., & Roux, B. (2013). Automated force field parameterization for non-polarizable and
polarizable atomic models based on AB initio target DATA. Journal of Chemical Theory and
Computation, 9.
79. Henzler-Wildman, K., & Kern, D. (2007). Dynamic personalities of proteins. Nature, 450,
964–972.
80. Soares, T. A., et al. (2023). Guidelines for reporting molecular dynamics simulations in JCIM
publications. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 63, 3227–3229.
81. Knapp, B., Ospina, L., & Deane, C. M. (2018). Avoiding false positive conclusions in
molecular simulation: The importance of replicas. Journal of Chemical Theory and Compu-
tation, 14, 6127–6138.
82. Grossfield, A., & Zuckerman, D. M. (2009). Quantifying uncertainty and sampling quality in
biomolecular simulations. Annual Reports in Computational Chemistry, 5,23–
83. Yan, S., Peck, J. M., Ilgu, M., Nilsen-Hamilton, M., & Lamm, M. H. (2020). Sampling
performance of multiple independent molecular dynamics simulations of an RNA Aptamer.
ACS Omega, 5, 20187–20201.
84. Sargsyan, K., Grauffel, C., & Lim, C. (2017). How molecular size impacts RMSD applications
in molecular dynamics simulations. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 13 ,
1518–1524.
85. Theobald, D. L. (2005). Rapid calculation of RMSDs using a quaternion-based characteristic
polynomial. Acta Crystallographica. Section A, 61, 478–480.
86. Martínez, L. (2015). Automatic identification of Mobile and rigid substructures in molecular
dynamics simulations and fractional structural fluctuation analysis. PLoS One, 10, e0119264.
87. Lobanov, M. Y., Bogatyreva, N. S., & Galzitskaya, O. V. (2008). Radius of gyration as an
indicator of protein structure compactness. Molecular Biology, 42, 623–628.
88. Pauling, L., Corey, R. B., & Branson, H. R. (1951). The structure of proteins: Two hydrogenbonded helical configurations of the polypeptide chain. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 37, 205–211.
48.
8 Drug Design in Motion: Concepts and Applications of Classical... 239
89. Kabsch, W., & Sander, C. (1983). Dictionary of protein secondary structure: Pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers, 22, 2577–2637.
90. Lyu, Z., Wang, Z., Luo, F., Shuai, J., & Huang, Y. (2021). Protein secondary structure
prediction with a reductive deep learning method. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotech-
nology, 9.
91. Jolliffe, I. T., & Cadima, J. (2016). Principal component analysis: A review and recent
developments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical
and Engineering Sciences, 374, 20150202.
92. Sittel, F., Jain, A., & Stock, G. (2014). Principal component analysis of molecular dynamics:
On the use of Cartesian vs. internal coordinates. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 141,
014111.
93. Jolliffe, I. T. (2002). Principal component analysis for time series and other non-independent
Data. In I. T. Jolliffe (Ed.), Principal component analysis (pp. 299–337). Springer.
94. Onuchic, J. N., Luthey-Schulten, Z., & Wolynes, P. G. (1997). THEORY OF PROTEIN
FOLDING: The energy landscape perspective. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 48,
545–600.
95. Shevchenko, E., Poso, A., & Pantsar, T. (2020). The autoinhibited state of MKK4: Phosphorylation, putative dimerization and R134W mutant studied by molecular dynamics simulations.
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 18, 2687–2698.
96. Sarich, M., Prinz, J.-H., & Schütte, C. (2014). Markov model theory. In G. R. Bowman, V. S.
Pande, & F. Noé (Eds.), An introduction to Markov state models and their application to long
timescale molecular simulation (pp. 23–44). Springer.
97. Klippenstein, S. J., Pande, V. S., & Truhlar, D. G. (2014). Chemical kinetics and mechanisms
of complex systems: A perspective on recent theoretical advances. Journal of the American
Chemical Society, 136, 528–546.
98. Konovalov, K. A., Unarta, I. C., Cao, S., Goonetilleke, E. C., & Huang, X. (2021). Markov
state models to study the functional dynamics of proteins in the wake of machine learning.
JACS Au, 1, 1330–1341.
99. Pande, V. S., Beauchamp, K., & Bowman, G. R. (2010). Everything you wanted to know
about Markov state models but were afraid to ask. Methods, 52,99–105.
100. McGibbon, R. T., Schwantes, C. R., & Pande, V. S. (2014). Statistical model selection for
Markov models of biomolecular dynamics. The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B, 118,
6475–6481.
101. Meng, Y., et al. (2018). Predicting the conformational variability of Abl tyrosine kinase using
molecular dynamics simulations and Markov state models. Journal of Chemical Theory and
Computation, 14, 2721–2732.
102. Maltarollo, V. G., et al. (2022). Do go chasing waterfalls: Enoyl Reductase (FabI) in complex
with inhibitors stabilizes the Tetrameric structure and opens water channels. Journal of
Chemical Information and Modeling, 62, 5746–5761.
103. Paul, F., Thomas, T., & Roux, B. (2020). Diversity of long-lived intermediates along the
binding pathway of Imatinib to Abl kinase revealed by MD simulations. Journal of Chemical
Theory and Computation, 16, 7852–7865.
104. Paul, F., Meng, Y., & Roux, B. (2020). Identification of Druggable kinase target conformations using Markov model metastable states analysis of apo-Abl. Journal of Chemical Theory
and Computation, 16, 1896
105. Mejdrová, I., et al. (2023). Discovery of novel human constitutive Androstane receptor
agonists with the Imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine structure. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 66,
2422–2456.
106. Calabrese, A. N., et al. (2020). Inter-domain dynamics in the chaperone SurA and multi-site
binding to its outer membrane protein clients. Nature Communications, 11, 2155.
107. Bauer, P., Hess, B., & Lindahl, E. (2022). GROMACS 2022.3 Manual.
108. Pantsar, T. (2019). The current understanding of KRAS protein structure and dynamics.
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 18, 189–198.
–1912.
240 E. Shevchenko et al.
109. Johnson, C. W., et al. (2022). Regulation of GTPase function by autophosphorylation.
Molecular Cell, 82, 950–968.e14.
110. Gowers, R. J., et al. (2016). MDAnalysis: A python package for the rapid analysis of molecular
dynamics simulations. In Proceedings of the 15th python in science conference (pp. 98–105).
111. Michaud‐Agrawal, N., Denning, E. J., Woolf, T. B., & Beckstein, O. (2011). MDAnalysis: A
toolkit for the analysis of molecular dynamics simulations. Journal of Computational Chem-
istry, 32, 2319–2327.
112. Patil, R., et al. (2010). Optimized hydrophobic interactions and hydrogen bonding at the
target-ligand Interface leads the pathways of drug-designing. PLoS One, 5, e12029.
113. Ayaz, P., et al. (2023). Structural mechanism of a drug-binding process involving a large
conformational change of the protein target. Nature Communications, 14, 1885.
114. Ye, L., et al. (2018). Mechanistic insights into allosteric regulation of the A2A adenosine G
protein-coupled receptor by physiological cations. Nature Communications, 9, 1372.
115. Hedderich, J. B., et al. (2022). The pocketome of G-protein-coupled receptors reveals previously untargeted allosteric sites. Nature Communications, 13, 2567.
116. Bayrak, A., et al. (2022). Discovery and development of first-in-class ACKR3/CXCR7
Superagonists for platelet degranulation modulation. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 65,
13365–13384.
117. Nygaard, R., et al. (2013). The dynamic process of β2-adrenergic receptor activation. Cell,
152, 532–542.
118. Ibrahim, P., Wifling, D., & Clark, T. (2019). Universal activation index for class A GPCRs.
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 59, 3938–3945.
119. Bruzzese, A., Dalton, J. A. R., & Giraldo, J. (2020). Statistics for the analysis of molecular
dynamics simulations: Providing P values for agonist-dependent GPCR activation. Scientific
Reports, 10, 19942.
120. Zhu, M., Wang, D. D., & Yan, H. (2021). Genotype-determined EGFR-RTK
heterodimerization and its effects on drug resistance in lung Cancer treatment revealed by
molecular dynamics simulations. BMC Molecular and Cell Biology, 22, 34.
121. Wang, R., & Zheng, Q. (2020). Multiple molecular dynamics simulations of the inhibitor
GRL-02031 complex with wild type and mutant HIV-1 protease reveal the binding and drugresistance mechanism. Langmuir, 36, 13817–13832.
122. Sun, H., Li, Y., Tian, S., Wang, J., & Hou, T. (2014). P-loop conformation governed
Crizotinib resistance in G2032R-mutated ROS1 tyrosine kinase: Clues from free energy
landscape. PLoS Computational Biology, 10, e1003729.
123. Sabanés Zariquiey, F., et al. (2022). Divide and conquer. Pocket-opening mixed-solvent
simulations in the perspective of docking virtual screening applications for drug discovery.
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 62, 533–543.
124. Díaz-Holguín, A., et al. (2023). When two become one: Conformational changes in FXR/RXR
heterodimers bound to steroidal antagonists. ChemMedChem, 18, e202200556.
125. Bash, P. A., Field, M. J., & Karplus, M. (1987). Free energy perturbation method for chemical
reactions in the condensed phase: A dynamic approach based on a combined quantum and
molecular mechanics potential. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 109, 8092–8094.
126. Beveridge, D. L., & DiCapua, F. M. (1989). Free energy via molecular simulation: Applications to chemical and biomolecular systems. Annual Review of Biophysics and Biophysical
Chemistry, 18, 431–492.
127. de Ruiter, A., & Oostenbrink, C. (2024). Binding free energy calculations in drug discovery. In
Computational drug discovery (pp. 1–20). Wiley.
128. Kollman, P. A., et al. (2000). Calculating structures and free energies of complex molecules:
Combining molecular mechanics and continuum models. Accounts of Chemical Research, 33,
889–897.
129. Genheden, S., & Ryde, U. (2015). The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate
ligand-binding affinities. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery, 10, 449–461.
8 Drug Design in Motion: Concepts and Applications of Classical... 241
130. Forouzesh, N., & Mishra, N. (2021). An effective MM/GBSA protocol for absolute binding
free energy calculations: A Case study on SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the human ACE2
receptor. Molecules, 26, 2383.
131. Godschalk, F., Genheden, S., Söderhjelm, P., & Ryde, U. (2013). Comparison of MM/GBSA
calculations based on explicit and implicit solvent simulations. Physical Chemistry Chemical
Physics, 15, 7731–7739.
132. Still, W. C., Tempczyk, A., Hawley, R. C., & Hendrickson, T. (1990). Semianalytical
treatment of solvation for molecular mechanics and dynamics. Journal of the American
Chemical Society, 112, 6127–6129.
133. Aguilar, B., & Onufriev, A. V. (2012). Efficient computation of the Total solvation energy of
small molecules via the R6 generalized born model. Journal of Chemical Theory and
Computation, 8, 2404–2411.
134. Aguilar, B., Shadrach, R., & Onufriev, A. V. (2010). Reducing the secondary structure bias in
the generalized born model via R6 effective radii. Journal of Chemical Theory and Compu-
tation, 6, 3613–3630.
135. Gohlke, H., & Case, D. A. (2004). Converging free energy estimates: MM-PB(GB)SA studies
on the protein–protein complex Ras–Raf. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 25, 238–250.
136. Hou, T., Wang, J., Li, Y., & Wang, W. (2011). Assessing the performance of the MM/PBSA
and MM/GBSA methods. 1. The accuracy of binding free energy calculations based on
molecular dynamics simulations. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 51,69–82.
137. Rashidian, A. et al. (2023). Filling the blank space: Branched 4-nonylphenols isomers are
responsible for robust constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) activation by nonylphenol.
Preprint at
138. Clark, D. E. (2011). What has polar surface area ever done for drug discovery? Future
Medicinal Chemistry, 3, 469–484.
139. Roe, D. R., & Cheatham, T. E. I. (2013). PTRAJ and CPPTRAJ: Software for processing and
analysis of molecular dynamics trajectory Data. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computa-
tion, 9, 3084–3095.
140. Abraham, M. J., et al. (2015). GROMACS: High performance molecular simulations through
multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX, 1–2,19–25.
141. Bitencourt-Ferreira, G., Veit-Acosta, M., & de Azevedo, W. F. (2019). Hydrogen bonds in
protein-ligand complexes. In W. F. de Azevedo Jr. (Ed.), Docking screens for drug discovery
(pp. 93–107). Springer.
142. Kuster, D. J., Liu, C., Fang, Z., Ponder, J. W., & Marshall, G. R. (2015). High-resolution
crystal structures of protein helices reconciled with three-centered hydrogen bonds and
multipole electrostatics. PLoS One, 10, e0123146.
143. Jacobson, M. P., Friesner, R. A., Xiang, Z., & Honig, B. (2002). On the role of the crystal
environment in determining protein side-chain conformations. Journal of Molecular Biology,
320, 597–608.
144. Lovell, S. C., Word, J. M., Richardson, J. S., & Richardson, D. C. (1999). Asparagine and
glutamine rotamers: B -factor cutoff and correction of amide flips yield distinct clustering.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96, 400–
145. Morris, G. M., et al. (2009). AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with
selective receptor flexibility. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 30, 2785–2791.
146. Dominguez, C., Boelens, R., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2003). HADDOCK: A protein-protein
docking approach based on biochemical or biophysical information. Journal of the American
Chemical Society, 125, 1731–1737.
147. van Zundert, G. C. P., et al. (2016). The HADDOCK2.2 web server: User-friendly integrative
modeling of biomolecular complexes. Journal of Molecular Biology, 428, 720–725.
148. Pettersen, E. F., et al. (2004). UCSF Chimera—A visualization system for exploratory
research and analysis. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 25, 1605–1612.
405.
242 E. Shevchenko et al.
149. Madhavi Sastry, G., Adzhigirey, M., Day, T., Annabhimoju, R., & Sherman, W. (2013).
Protein and ligand preparation: Parameters, protocols, and influence on virtual screening
enrichments. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 27, 221–234.
150. Kitchen, D. B., Decornez, H., Furr, J. R., & Bajorath, J. (2004). Docking and scoring in virtual
screening for drug discovery: Methods and applications. Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery, 3,
935–949.
151. Brooijmans, N., & Kuntz, I. D. (2003). Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. Annual
Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure, 32, 335–373.
152. Friesner, R. A., et al. (2006). Extra precision glide: Docking and scoring incorporating a model
of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 49,
6177–6196.
153. Friesner, R. A., et al. (2004). Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring.
1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 47,
1739–1749.
154. Eberhardt, J., Santos-Martins, D., Tillack, A. F., & Forli, S. (2021). AutoDock Vina 1.2.0:
New docking methods, expanded force Field, and python bindings. Journal of Chemical
Information and Modeling, 61, 3891–3898.
155. Trott, O., & Olson, A. J. (2010). AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of
docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization and multithreading. Journal of
Computational Chemistry, 31, 455–461.
156. Verdonk, M. L., et al. (2004). Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: Avoiding
artificial enrichment. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 44, 793–806.
157. Huang, N., Shoichet, B. K., & Irwin, J. J. (2006). Benchmarking sets for molecular docking.
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 49, 6789–6801.
158. Clark, R. D., & Webster-Clark, D. J. (2008). Managing bias in ROC curves. Journal of
Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 22 , 141–146.
159. Salmaso, V., & Moro, S. (2018). Bridging molecular docking to molecular dynamics in
exploring ligand-protein recognition process: An overview. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 9.
160. Chen, Y.-C. (2015). Beware of docking! Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 36,78–95.
161. Miller, E. B., et al. (2021). Reliable and accurate solution to the induced fit docking problem
for protein-ligand binding. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 17, 2630–2639.
162. Rueda, M., Bottegoni, G., & Abagyan, R. (2010). Recipes for the selection of experimental
protein conformations for virtual screening. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling,
50, 186–193.
163. Mysinger, M. M., Carchia, M., Irwin, J. J., & Shoichet, B. K. (2012). Directory of useful
decoys, enhanced (DUD-E): Better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking.
Journal of
Medicinal Chemistry, 55, 6582–6594.
164. Tian, S., et al. (2014). Assessing an ensemble docking-based virtual screening strategy for
kinase targets by considering protein flexibility. Journal of Chemical Information and Model-
ing, 54, 2664–2679.
165. Nichols, S. E., Baron, R., Ivetac, A., & McCammon, J. A. (2011). Predictive power of
molecular dynamics receptor structures in virtual screening. Journal of Chemical Information
and Modeling, 51, 1439–1446.