Only in some cases.Discussion of Benchmark ResultsWhen looking at a

Only in some cases.Discussion of Benchmark ResultsWhen looking at a pair of protein variants, POCKETOPTIMIZER is able to correctly predict which variant has a better binding affinity if that difference is based on the introduction or abolition of a direct interaction of the mutable residue’s side chain with the ligand. This is especially noteworthy for pairs where one residue forms a hydrogen bond with the ligand, while the other does not. This was predicted correctly in seven of eight cases where the better binding variant forms an additional hydrogen bond. It also works well if the variable side chain of one mutation variant is bulkier than its counterpart in another variant, and therefore packs better against the ligand, i.e. forms more van der Waals (vdW) interactions with the ligand and shields it better from solvent, improving the solvation energy contribution. A potential downside of this effect of vdW contact improvement is that POCKETOPTIMIZER sometimes seems to prefer larger side chains even if they are detrimental to binding for other reasons. This tendency could lead to an overpacking of the designed pocket. When differences in binding have more complex causes, such as rearrangements in the pocket’s side chains that affect the ligand interaction indirectly by influencing other pocket side chains, the program generally fails to capture these differences. Both scoring functions used within POCKETOPTIMIZER, from Autodock Vina and CADDSuite, produce results that are quite similar. The overpacking effect discussed before is less pronounced in Vina, which explains its slightly better performance in predicting which variant of a pair binds better (see Table 2). Generally, the order of the designs by energy scores calculated by our method does not depend on which variant’s crystal structure was used as the scaffold. Only in a few cases a MedChemExpress Decernotinib significant difference can be observed, notably for carbonic anhydrase II and trypsin. In some cases, the POCKETOPTIMIZER designs did not contain a conformational configuration that avoids vdW clashes in the binding pocket. In one test case, namely for neuroaminidase, theBenchmark ResultsThe optimization PF-04554878 site scheme of POCKETOPTIMIZER simultaneously chooses sequence and conformation. It can go over many alternatives. For the benchmark, however, it was necessary to restrict the sequence to the mutations for which experimental data was available. We tested the performance of POCKETOPTIMIZER on the benchmark set using Autodock Vina and CADDSuite receptor-ligand scores as well as ROSETTA’s enzyme design application. Each method was used for the same set of design calculations. Each available crystal structure was used as a scaffold for the design of each mutational variant. We obtained a design for each mutation in each scaffold structure by forcing the methods to select a particular mutation in a separate run. This allowed us to compare the predicted binding and total energy scores as well as the designed conformations with the experimental data. Figure 3 shows the RMSD values between the designs and the respective crystal structures. This is a measure of how well the respective method models the conformation of the binding pocket residues and the ligand pose in the pocket. ROSETTA performs better in modeling side chains in the binding pocket. The difference between the pocket RMSDs of ROSETTA and each of the two POCKETOPTIMIZER variants is statistically significant with a p-value ,0.01 according to a Mann.Only in some cases.Discussion of Benchmark ResultsWhen looking at a pair of protein variants, POCKETOPTIMIZER is able to correctly predict which variant has a better binding affinity if that difference is based on the introduction or abolition of a direct interaction of the mutable residue’s side chain with the ligand. This is especially noteworthy for pairs where one residue forms a hydrogen bond with the ligand, while the other does not. This was predicted correctly in seven of eight cases where the better binding variant forms an additional hydrogen bond. It also works well if the variable side chain of one mutation variant is bulkier than its counterpart in another variant, and therefore packs better against the ligand, i.e. forms more van der Waals (vdW) interactions with the ligand and shields it better from solvent, improving the solvation energy contribution. A potential downside of this effect of vdW contact improvement is that POCKETOPTIMIZER sometimes seems to prefer larger side chains even if they are detrimental to binding for other reasons. This tendency could lead to an overpacking of the designed pocket. When differences in binding have more complex causes, such as rearrangements in the pocket’s side chains that affect the ligand interaction indirectly by influencing other pocket side chains, the program generally fails to capture these differences. Both scoring functions used within POCKETOPTIMIZER, from Autodock Vina and CADDSuite, produce results that are quite similar. The overpacking effect discussed before is less pronounced in Vina, which explains its slightly better performance in predicting which variant of a pair binds better (see Table 2). Generally, the order of the designs by energy scores calculated by our method does not depend on which variant’s crystal structure was used as the scaffold. Only in a few cases a significant difference can be observed, notably for carbonic anhydrase II and trypsin. In some cases, the POCKETOPTIMIZER designs did not contain a conformational configuration that avoids vdW clashes in the binding pocket. In one test case, namely for neuroaminidase, theBenchmark ResultsThe optimization scheme of POCKETOPTIMIZER simultaneously chooses sequence and conformation. It can go over many alternatives. For the benchmark, however, it was necessary to restrict the sequence to the mutations for which experimental data was available. We tested the performance of POCKETOPTIMIZER on the benchmark set using Autodock Vina and CADDSuite receptor-ligand scores as well as ROSETTA’s enzyme design application. Each method was used for the same set of design calculations. Each available crystal structure was used as a scaffold for the design of each mutational variant. We obtained a design for each mutation in each scaffold structure by forcing the methods to select a particular mutation in a separate run. This allowed us to compare the predicted binding and total energy scores as well as the designed conformations with the experimental data. Figure 3 shows the RMSD values between the designs and the respective crystal structures. This is a measure of how well the respective method models the conformation of the binding pocket residues and the ligand pose in the pocket. ROSETTA performs better in modeling side chains in the binding pocket. The difference between the pocket RMSDs of ROSETTA and each of the two POCKETOPTIMIZER variants is statistically significant with a p-value ,0.01 according to a Mann.

Leave a Reply