Xamine two scoring functions in this study, the scoring function provided

Xamine two scoring functions in this study, the scoring function provided by CADDSuite [28] and Autodock Vina [29]. In order to assess the performance of POCKETOPTIMIZER and other methods that address the same task, we compiled a benchmark set. It consists of mutational variants of proteins and their small ligands with available experimental structural and binding affinity data. We also used this benchmark to test the enzyme design application included in the ROSETTA molecular modeling software. ROSETTA was used for the majority of the design studies mentioned earlier, and it is the most successful freely available protein design software to date [30]. We find that both methods GM6001 perform similarly. In our benchmark POCKETOPTIMIZER succeeds slightly better in predicting the correct affinity-enhancing mutations. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of our method and describe to which protein design problems it can be applied with good chances of success. The findings emphasize the merit of a systematic approach to evaluate computational protein design methodologies, to identify their strengths, and to pinpoint possibilities for improvement. And our modular program POCKETOPTIMIZER provides a suitable framework to test and implement these approaches.Results and Discussion Computational Receptor Design Pipeline PocketOptimizerWe developed POCKETOPTIMIZER for the design of proteinligand interactions. In combination with a program such as SCAFFOLDSELECTION [24] it can also be used for enzyme design. POCKETOPTIMIZER is a combination of customizable molecular modeling components. Amino acid flexibility is modeled by a side chain conformer library, ligand flexibility is addressed by systematically sampling poses of the ligand in the binding pocket. The score that is optimized is a combination of protein packing energy calculated with the AMBER force field [31], and proteinligand binding energy calculated using a scoring function. To identify the most promising design, the global minimum energy conformation of a protein pocket with the ligand based on the combined energy score is calculated [32?3]. Intermediate results like conformers or score tables are stored in standard file formats, making it easy to compare different approaches for a given subtask. Notably, we used two receptor-ligand scoring functions in this study, the scoring function included in CADDSuite [28] and Autodock Vina [29]. Figure 1 depicts the workflow of the POCKETOPTIMIZER pipeline. The program POCKETOPTIMIZER is designed as a modular pipeline that allows exchange of program parts, e.g. the use ofFigure 1. Workflow of PocketOptimizer. The input specific for a design is depicted in circles, parts of the pipeline are shown in pointed rectangles, and output Gilteritinib site components in rounded rectangles. The output is stored in standard file formats (SDF and PDB 15826876 for structural data, csv for energy tables). This allows the easy replacement of a component with another that solves the same task (e.g. replacing the binding score function). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052505.gComputational Design of Binding Pocketsdifferent available docking functions or force-fields. In contrast to other existing design programs this pipeline aims to provide a platform for the incorporation and testing of available modules so that the contribution of individual parts can be distinguished. In its current implementation of POCKETOPTIMIZER we chose to use a conformer library over rotamers. The program is geared towar.Xamine two scoring functions in this study, the scoring function provided by CADDSuite [28] and Autodock Vina [29]. In order to assess the performance of POCKETOPTIMIZER and other methods that address the same task, we compiled a benchmark set. It consists of mutational variants of proteins and their small ligands with available experimental structural and binding affinity data. We also used this benchmark to test the enzyme design application included in the ROSETTA molecular modeling software. ROSETTA was used for the majority of the design studies mentioned earlier, and it is the most successful freely available protein design software to date [30]. We find that both methods perform similarly. In our benchmark POCKETOPTIMIZER succeeds slightly better in predicting the correct affinity-enhancing mutations. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of our method and describe to which protein design problems it can be applied with good chances of success. The findings emphasize the merit of a systematic approach to evaluate computational protein design methodologies, to identify their strengths, and to pinpoint possibilities for improvement. And our modular program POCKETOPTIMIZER provides a suitable framework to test and implement these approaches.Results and Discussion Computational Receptor Design Pipeline PocketOptimizerWe developed POCKETOPTIMIZER for the design of proteinligand interactions. In combination with a program such as SCAFFOLDSELECTION [24] it can also be used for enzyme design. POCKETOPTIMIZER is a combination of customizable molecular modeling components. Amino acid flexibility is modeled by a side chain conformer library, ligand flexibility is addressed by systematically sampling poses of the ligand in the binding pocket. The score that is optimized is a combination of protein packing energy calculated with the AMBER force field [31], and proteinligand binding energy calculated using a scoring function. To identify the most promising design, the global minimum energy conformation of a protein pocket with the ligand based on the combined energy score is calculated [32?3]. Intermediate results like conformers or score tables are stored in standard file formats, making it easy to compare different approaches for a given subtask. Notably, we used two receptor-ligand scoring functions in this study, the scoring function included in CADDSuite [28] and Autodock Vina [29]. Figure 1 depicts the workflow of the POCKETOPTIMIZER pipeline. The program POCKETOPTIMIZER is designed as a modular pipeline that allows exchange of program parts, e.g. the use ofFigure 1. Workflow of PocketOptimizer. The input specific for a design is depicted in circles, parts of the pipeline are shown in pointed rectangles, and output components in rounded rectangles. The output is stored in standard file formats (SDF and PDB 15826876 for structural data, csv for energy tables). This allows the easy replacement of a component with another that solves the same task (e.g. replacing the binding score function). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052505.gComputational Design of Binding Pocketsdifferent available docking functions or force-fields. In contrast to other existing design programs this pipeline aims to provide a platform for the incorporation and testing of available modules so that the contribution of individual parts can be distinguished. In its current implementation of POCKETOPTIMIZER we chose to use a conformer library over rotamers. The program is geared towar.