Chaos-embedded particle swarm optimization approach for protein-ligand docking and virtual screening
Tóm tắt
Protein-ligand docking programs are routinely used in structure-based drug design to find the optimal binding pose of a ligand in the protein’s active site. These programs are also used to identify potential drug candidates by ranking large sets of compounds. As more accurate and efficient docking programs are always desirable, constant efforts focus on developing better docking algorithms or improving the scoring function. Recently, chaotic maps have emerged as a promising approach to improve the search behavior of optimization algorithms in terms of search diversity and convergence speed. However, their effectiveness on docking applications has not been explored. Herein, we integrated five popular chaotic maps—logistic, Singer, sinusoidal, tent, and Zaslavskii maps—into PSOVina
$$^{{\mathrm{2LS}}}$$
, a recent variant of the popular AutoDock Vina program with enhanced global and local search capabilities, and evaluated their performances in ligand pose prediction and virtual screening using four docking benchmark datasets and two virtual screening datasets. Pose prediction experiments indicate that chaos-embedded algorithms outperform AutoDock Vina and PSOVina in ligand pose RMSD, success rate, and run time. In virtual screening experiments, Singer map-embedded PSOVina
$$^{{\mathrm{2LS}}}$$
achieved a very significant five- to sixfold speedup with comparable screening performances to AutoDock Vina in terms of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and enrichment factor. Therefore, our results suggest that chaos-embedded PSOVina methods might be a better option than AutoDock Vina for docking and virtual screening tasks. The success of chaotic maps in protein-ligand docking reveals their potential for improving optimization algorithms in other search problems, such as protein structure prediction and folding. The Singer map-embedded PSOVina
$$^{{\mathrm{2LS}}}$$
which is named PSOVina-2.0 and all testing datasets are publicly available on
https://cbbio.cis.umac.mo/software/psovina
.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Meng X-Y, Zhang H-X et al (2011) Molecular docking: a powerful approach for structure-based drug discovery. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 7:146–157
Liu J, Wang R (2015) Classification of current scoring functions. J Chem Inf Model 55:475–482
Trott O, Olson AJ (2010) AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem 31:455–461
Jones G, Willett P et al (1997) Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J Mol Biol 267:727–748
Morris GM, Goodsell DS et al (1998) Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J Comput Chem 19:1639–1662
Chen H-M, Liu B-F et al (2007) SODOCK: swarm optimization for highly flexible protein-ligand docking. J Comput Chem 28:612–623
Namasivayam V, Günther R (2007) pso@autodock: a fast flexible molecular docking program based on swarm intelligence. Chem Biol Drug Des 70:475–484
Liu Y, Zhao L et al (2013) FIPSDock: a new molecular docking technique driven by fully informed swarm optimization algorithm. J Comput Chem 34:67–75
Ng MC, Fong S et al (2015) PSOVina: the hybrid particle swarm optimization algorithm for protein-ligand docking. J Bioinform Comput Biol 13:1541007
Korb O, Stützle T et al (2009) Empirical scoring functions for advanced protein-ligand docking with PLANTS. J Chem Inf Model 49:84–96
Uehara S, Fujimoto KJ et al (2015) Protein-ligand docking using fitness learning-based artificial bee colony with proximity stimuli. Phys Chem Chem Phys 17:16412–16417
Tai HK, Lin H et al (2016) Improving the efficiency of PSOVina for protein-ligand docking by two-stage local search. In: CEC, pp 770–777
Alatas B, Akin E et al (2009) Chaos embedded particle swarm optimization algorithms. Chaos Solitons Fractals 40:1715–1734
Fister I Jr, Perc M et al (2015) A review of chaos-based firefly algorithms: perspectives and research challenges. Appl Math Comput 252:155–165
Huang L, Ding S et al (2016) Chaos-enhanced Cuckoo search optimization algorithms for global optimization. Appl Math Model 40:3860–3875
Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: ICNN, pp 1942–1948
Bansal JC, Singh PK et al (2011) Inertia weight strategies in particle swarm optimization. In: NaBIC, pp 633–640
Ratnaweera A, Halgamuge SK et al (2002) Particle swarm optimization with self-adaptive acceleration coefficients. In: FSKD, pp 264–268
Schuster H (1988) Deterministic chaos: an introduction. Wiley, Hoboken
Iztok FJ, Perc M et al (2015) A review of chaos-based firefly algorithms: perspectives and research challenges. Appl Math Comput 252:155–165
Wang L, Zhong Y (2015) Cuckoo search algorithm with chaotic maps. Math Probl Eng 2015:715635
Chuang L, Hsiao C et al (2011) Chaotic particle swarm optimization for data clustering. Expert Syst Appl 38:14555–14563
Zawbaa HM, Emary E et al (2016) Feature selection via chaotic antlion optimization. PLoS ONE 11:e0150652
Chuanwen J, Bompard E (2005) A hybrid method of chaotic particle swarm optimization and linear interior for reactive power optimisation. Math Comput Simul 68:57–65
Li P, Xu D et al (2016) Stochastic optimal operation of microgrid based on chaotic binary particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 7:66–73
Liu H, Wang X et al (2012) Image encryption using DNA complementary rule and chaotic maps. Appl Soft Comput 12:1457–1466
Chuang L-Y, Yang C-H et al (2013) Operon prediction using chaos embedded particle swarm optimization. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 10:1299–1309
Chuang L-Y, Moi S-H et al (2016) A comparative analysis of chaotic particle swarm optimizations for detecting single nucleotide polymorphism barcodes. Artif Intell Med 73:23–33
Gao C, Wang B et al (2016) Multiple sequence alignment based on combining genetic algorithm with chaotic sequences. Genet Mol Res 15:1–10
May RM (1976) Simple mathematical models with very complicated dynamics. Nature 261:459–467
Peitgen H-O, Jürgens H et al (1992) Chaos and fractals, vol 199. Springer, Berlin, p 5
Ott E (2002) Chaos in dynamical systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Zaslavsky G (1978) The simplest case of a strange attractor. Phys Lett A 69:145–147
Zheng W-M (1994) Kneading plane of the circle map. Chaos Solitons Fractals 4:1221–1233
Peterson G (1997) Arnold’s cat map. Math Linear Algebra 45:1–7
Sinai YG (1972) Gibbs measures in ergodic theory. Russ Math Surv 27:21
Li Y, Liu Z et al (2014) Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 1. Compilation of the test set. J Chem Inf Model 54:1700–1716
Hartshorn MJ, Verdonk ML et al (2007) Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance. J Med Chem 50:726–741
Nissink JW M, Murray C et al (2002) A new test set for validating predictions of protein-ligand interaction. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinf 49:457–471
Mukherjee S, Balius TE et al (2010) Docking validation resources: protein family and ligand flexibility experiments. J Chem Inf Model 50:1986–2000
Ruiz-Carmona S, Alvarez-Garcia D et al (2014) rDock: a fast, versatile and open source program for docking ligands to proteins and nucleic acids. PLoS Comput Biol 10:e1003571
Mysinger MM, Carchia M et al (2012) Directory of useful decoys, enhanced (DUD-E): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking. J Med Chem 55:6582–6594
Feinstein WP, Brylinski M (2015) Calculating an optimal box size for ligand docking and virtual screening against experimental and predicted binding pockets. J Cheminf 7:18