How Good Are Current Docking Programs at Nucleic Acid–Ligand Docking? A Comprehensive Evaluation

Abstract

Nucleic acid (NA)–ligand interactions are of paramount importance in a variety of biological processes, including cellular reproduction and protein biosynthesis, and therefore, NAs have been broadly recognized as potential drug targets. Understanding NA–ligand interactions at the atomic scale is essential for investigating the molecular mechanism and further assisting in NA-targeted drug discovery. Molecular docking is one of the predominant computational approaches for predicting the interactions between NAs and small molecules. Despite the availability of versatile docking programs, their performance profiles for NA–ligand complexes have not been thoroughly characterized. In this study, we first compiled the largest structure-based NA–ligand binding data set to date, containing 800 noncovalent NA–ligand complexes with clearly identified ligands. Based on this extensive data set, eight frequently used docking programs, including six protein–ligand docking programs (LeDock, Surflex-Dock, UCSF Dock6, AutoDock, AutoDock Vina, and PLANTS) and two specific NA–ligand docking programs (rDock and RLDOCK), were systematically evaluated in terms of binding pose and binding affinity predictions. The results demonstrated that some protein–ligand docking programs, specifically PLANTS and LeDock, produced more promising or comparable results compared with the specialized NA–ligand docking programs. Among the programs evaluated, PLANTS, rDock, and LeDock showed the highest performance in binding pose prediction, and their top-1 and best root-mean-square deviation (rmsd) success rates were as follows: PLANTS (35.93 and 76.05%), rDock (27.25 and 72.16%), and LeDock (27.40 and 64.37%). Compared with the moderate level of binding pose prediction, few programs were successful in binding affinity prediction, and the best correlation (R p = −0.461) was observed with PLANTS. Finally, further comparison with the latest NA–ligand docking program (NLDock) on four well-established data sets revealed that PLANTS and LeDock outperformed NLDock in terms of binding pose prediction on all data sets, demonstrating their significant potential for NA–ligand docking. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the most comprehensive evaluation of popular molecular docking programs for NA–ligand systems.

UCHL1 promotes the proliferation of porcine granulosa cells by stabilizing CCNB1

“…The active components of Chinese medicinal materials were obtained from the TCMSP database [ 22 ]. LeDock was used for molecular docking, and the results were split into several PDB files [ 23 ]. The protein structure was imported into Maestro 13.5 for visualization [ 24 ].…”

Can Current Molecular Docking Methods Accurately Predict RNA Inhibitors?

“…A recent study conducted by Agarwal et al showed that rDOCK, a RNA–ligand docking method, outperformed AutoDock Vina in pose prediction . However, in another study conducted by Jiang et al, protein–ligand docking tools showed more promising performance than RNA–ligand docking methods . Although these docking methods were evaluated for pose prediction and binding affinity prediction, their ability to rank active and inactive ligands against RNA targets was not assessed, which is important for performing virtual screening campaigns.…”