The binding pose and affinity between a ligand and enzyme are very important pieces of information for computer-aided drug design. In the initial stage of a drug discovery project, this information is often obtained by using molecular docking methods. Autodock4 and Autodock Vina are two commonly used open-source and free software tools to perform this task, and each has been cited more than 6000 times in the last ten years. It is of great interest to compare the success rate of the two docking software programs for a large and diverse set of protein–ligand complexes. In this study, we selected 800 protein–ligand complexes for which both PDB structures and experimental binding affinity are available. Docking calculations were performed for these complexes using both Autodock4 and Autodock Vina with different docking options related to computing resource consumption and accuracy. Our calculation results are in good agreement with a previous study that the Vina approach converges much faster than AD4 one. However, interestingly, AD4 shows a better performance than Vina over 21 considered targets, whereas the Vina protocol is better than the AD4 package for 10 other targets. There are 16 complexes for which both the AD4 and Vina protocols fail to produce a reasonable correlation with respected experiments so both are not suitable to use to estimate binding free energies for these cases. In addition, the best docking option for performing the AD4 approach is the long option. However, the short option is the best solution for carrying out Vina docking. The obtained results probably will be useful for future docking studies in deciding which program to use.

The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has infected several million people and caused thousands of deaths worldwide since December 2019. As the disease is spreading rapidly all over the world, it is urgent to find effective drugs to treat the virus. The main protease (Mpro) of SARS-CoV-2 is one of the potential drug targets. Therefore, in this context, we used rigorous computational methods, including molecular docking, fast pulling of ligand (FPL), and free energy perturbation (FEP), to investigate potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro. We first tested our approach with three reported inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro, and our computational results are in good agreement with the respective experimental data. Subsequently, we applied our approach on a database of ∼4600 natural compounds, as well as 8 available HIV-1 protease (PR) inhibitors and an aza-peptide epoxide. Molecular docking resulted in a short list of 35 natural compounds, which was subsequently refined using the FPL scheme. FPL simulations resulted in five potential inhibitors, including three natural compounds and two available HIV-1 PR inhibitors. Finally, FEP, the most accurate and precise method, was used to determine the absolute binding free energy of these five compounds. FEP results indicate that two natural compounds, cannabisin A and isoacteoside, and an HIV-1 PR inhibitor, darunavir, exhibit a large binding free energy to SARS-CoV-2 Mpro, which is larger than that of 13b, the most reliable SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitor recently reported. The binding free energy largely arises from van der Waals interaction. We also found that Glu166 forms H-bonds to all of the inhibitors. Replacing Glu166 by an alanine residue leads to ∼2.0 kcal/mol decreases in the affinity of darunavir to SARS-CoV-2 Mpro. Our results could contribute to the development of potential drugs inhibiting SARS-CoV-2.

A combination of Autodock Vina and FPL calculations suggested that periandrin V, penimocycline, cis-p-Coumaroylcorosolic acid, glycyrrhizin, and uralsaponin B are able to bind well to SARS-CoV-2 Mpro.

No abstract