As one of the most popular computational approaches in modern structure-based drug design, molecular docking can be used not only to identify the correct conformation of a ligand within the target binding pocket but also to estimate the strength of the interaction between a target and a ligand. Nowadays, as a variety of docking programs are available for the scientific community, a comprehensive understanding of the advantages and limitations of each docking program is fundamentally important to conduct more reasonable docking studies and docking-based virtual screening. In the present study, based on an extensive dataset of 2002 protein-ligand complexes from the PDBbind database (version 2014), the performance of ten docking programs, including five commercial programs (LigandFit, Glide, GOLD, MOE Dock, and Surflex-Dock) and five academic programs (AutoDock, AutoDock Vina, LeDock, rDock, and UCSF DOCK), was systematically evaluated by examining the accuracies of binding pose prediction (sampling power) and binding affinity estimation (scoring power). Our results showed that GOLD and LeDock had the best sampling power (GOLD: 59.8% accuracy for the top scored poses; LeDock: 80.8% accuracy for the best poses) and AutoDock Vina had the best scoring power (rp/rs of 0.564/0.580 and 0.569/0.584 for the top scored poses and best poses), suggesting that the commercial programs did not show the expected better performance than the academic ones. Overall, the ligand binding poses could be identified in most cases by the evaluated docking programs but the ranks of the binding affinities for the entire dataset could not be well predicted by most docking programs. However, for some types of protein families, relatively high linear correlations between docking scores and experimental binding affinities could be achieved. To our knowledge, this study has been the most extensive evaluation of popular molecular docking programs in the last five years. It is expected that our work can offer useful information for the successful application of these docking tools to different requirements and targets.

By using different evaluation strategies, we systemically evaluated the performance of Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area (MM/GBSA) and Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA) methodologies based on more than 1800 protein-ligand crystal structures in the PDBbind database. The results can be summarized as follows: (1) for the one-protein-family/one-binding-ligand case which represents the unbiased protein-ligand complex sampling, both MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA methodologies achieve approximately equal accuracies at the interior dielectric constant of 4 (with rp = 0.408 ± 0.006 of MM/GBSA and rp = 0.388 ± 0.006 of MM/PBSA based on the minimized structures); while for the total dataset (1864 crystal structures), the overall best Pearson correlation coefficient (rp = 0.579 ± 0.002) based on MM/GBSA is better than that of MM/PBSA (rp = 0.491 ± 0.003), indicating that biased sampling may significantly affect the accuracy of the predicted result (some protein families contain too many instances and can bias the overall predicted accuracy). Therefore, family based classification is needed to evaluate the two methodologies; (2) the prediction accuracies of MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA for different protein families are quite different with rp ranging from 0 to 0.9, whereas the correlation and ranking scores (an averaged rp/rs over a list of protein folds and also representing the unbiased sampling) given by MM/PBSA (rp-score = 0.506 ± 0.050 and rs-score = 0.481 ± 0.052) are comparable to those given by MM/GBSA (rp-score = 0.516 ± 0.047 and rs-score = 0.463 ± 0.047) at the fold family level; (3) for the overall prediction accuracies, molecular dynamics (MD) simulation may not be quite necessary for MM/GBSA (rp-minimized = 0.579 ± 0.002 and rp-1ns = 0.564 ± 0.002), but is needed for MM/PBSA (rp-minimized = 0.412 ± 0.003 and rp-1ns = 0.491 ± 0.003). However, for the individual systems, whether to use MD simulation is depended. (4) both MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA may be unable to give successful predictions for the ligands with high formal charges, with the Pearson correlation coefficient ranging from 0.621 ± 0.003 (neutral ligands) to 0.125 ± 0.142 (ligands with a formal charge of 5). Therefore, it can be summarized that, although MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA perform similarly in the unbiased dataset, for the currently available crystal structures in the PDBbind database, compared with MM/GBSA, which may be used in multi-target comparisons, MM/PBSA is more sensitive to the investigated systems, and may be more suitable for individual-target-level binding free energy ranking. This study may provide useful guidance for the post-processing of docking based studies.

Here, we systematically investigated how the force fields and the partial charge models for ligands affect the ranking performance of the binding free energies predicted by the Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA) and Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area (MM/GBSA) approaches. A total of 46 small molecules targeted to five different protein receptors were employed to test the following issues: (1) the impact of five AMBER force fields (ff99, ff99SB, ff99SB-ILDN, ff03, and ff12SB) on the performance of MM/GBSA, (2) the influence of the time scale of molecular dynamics (MD) simulations on the performance of MM/GBSA with different force fields, (3) the impact of five AMBER force fields on the performance of MM/PBSA, and (4) the impact of four different charge models (RESP, ESP, AM1-BCC, and Gasteiger) for small molecules on the performance of MM/PBSA or MM/GBSA. Based on our simulation results, the following important conclusions can be obtained: (1) for short time-scale MD simulations (1 ns or less), the ff03 force field gives the best predictions by both MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA; (2) for middle time-scale MD simulations (2-4 ns), MM/GBSA based on the ff99 force field yields the best predictions, while MM/PBSA based on the ff99SB force field does the best; however, longer MD simulations, for example, 5 ns or more, may not be quite necessary; (3) for most cases, MM/PBSA with the Tan's parameters shows better ranking capability than MM/GBSA (GB(OBC1)); (4) the RESP charges show the best performance for both MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA, and the AM1-BCC and ESP charges can also give fairly satisfactory predictions. Our results provide useful guidance for the practical applications of the MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA approaches.

With the rapid development of computational techniques and hardware, more rigorous and precise theoretical models have been used to predict the binding affinities of a large number of small molecules to biomolecules. By employing continuum solvation models, the MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA methodologies achieve a good balance between low computational cost and reasonable prediction accuracy. In this study, we have thoroughly investigated the effects of interior dielectric constant, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, and the number of top-scored docking poses on the performance of the MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA rescoring of docking poses for three tyrosine kinases, including ABL, ALK, and BRAF. Overall, the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA rescoring achieved comparative accuracies based on a relatively higher solute (or interior) dielectric constant (i.e. ε = 2, or 4), and could markedly improve the 'screening power' and 'ranking power' given by Autodock. Moreover, with a relatively higher solute dielectric constant, the MM/PBSA or MM/GBSA rescoring based on the best scored docking poses and the multiple top-scored docking poses gave similar predictions, implying that much computational cost can be saved by considering the best scored docking poses only. Besides, compared with the rescoring based on the minimized structures, the rescoring based on the MD simulations might not be completely necessary due to its negligible impact on the docking performance. Considering the much higher computational demand of MM/PBSA, MM/GBSA with a high solute dielectric constant (ε = 2 or 4) is recommended for the virtual screening of tyrosine kinases.

No abstract