Improving ligand-ranking of AutoDock Vina by changing the empirical parameters.

AutoDock Vina (Vina) achieved a very high docking-success rate, p^ , but give a rather low correlation coefficient, R , for binding affinity with respect to experiments. This low correlation can be an obstacle for ranking of ligand-binding affinity, which is the main objective of docking simulations. In this context, we evaluated the dependence of Vina R coefficient upon its empirical parameters. R is affected more by changing the gauss2 and rotation than other terms. The docking-success rate p^ is sensitive to the alterations of the gauss1, gauss2, repulsion, and hydrogen bond parameters. Based on our benchmarks, the parameter set1 has been suggested to be the most optimal. The testing study over 800 complexes indicated that the modified Vina provided higher correlation with experiment Rset1=0.556±0.025 compared with RDefault=0.493±0.028 obtained by the original Vina and RVina1.2=0.503±0.029 by Vina version 1.2. Besides, the modified Vina can be also applied more widely, giving R≥0.500 for 32/48 targets, compared with the default package, giving R≥0.500 for 31/48 targets. In addition, validation calculations for 1036 complexes obtained from version 2019 of PDBbind refined structures showed that the set1 of parameters gave higher correlation coefficient ( Rset1=0.617±0.017 ) than the default package ( RDefault=0.543±0.020 ) and Vina version 1.2 ( RVina1.2=0.540±0.020 ). The version of Vina with set1 of parameters can be downloaded at https://github.com/sontungngo/mvina. The outcomes would enhance the ranking of ligand-binding affinity using Autodock Vina.

Autodock Vina Adopts More Accurate Binding Poses but Autodock4 Forms Better Binding Affinity.

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.

Novel Biomarker Candidates for Colorectal Cancer Metastasis: A Meta-analysis of In Vitro Studies.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common and lethal cancers. Although numerous studies have evaluated potential biomarkers for early diagnosis, current biomarkers have failed to reach an acceptable level of accuracy for distant metastasis. In this paper, we performed a gene set meta-analysis of in vitro microarray studies and combined the results from this study with previously published proteomic data to validate and suggest prognostic candidates for CRC metastasis. Two microarray data sets included found 21 significant genes. Of these significant genes, ALDOA, IL8 (CXCL8), and PARP4 had strong potential as prognostic candidates. LAMB2, MCM7, CXCL23A, SERPINA3, ABCA3, ALDH3A2, and POLR2I also have potential. Other candidates were more controversial, possibly because of the biologic heterogeneity of tumor cells, which is a major obstacle to predicting metastasis. In conclusion, we demonstrated a meta-analysis approach and successfully suggested ten biomarker candidates for future investigation.