Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
1
Protein-protein and Protein-ligand Docking
The geometric filtering
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
2
The Docking Problem� Input : A pair of molecules represented by
their 3D structures.� Tasks :
– Decide whether the molecules will form a complex (interact/bind).
– Determine the binding affinity.– Predict the 3D structure of the complex.– Deduce function.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
3
Significance/ Applications/Motivation
� Computer aided drug design – detection of lead compounds. Prediction of side-effects.
� Elucidation of biochemical pathways -governed by biomolecular recognition and interactions.
� Huge no. of potential complexes – requires computational screening.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
4
Forces governing biomolecular recognition
Depend on the molecules involved and the solvent.
� Van der Waals.� Electrostatics.� Hydrophobic contacts.� Hydrogen bonds� Salt bridges .. etc.All interactions act at short ranges.Implies that a necessary condition for tight
binding is surface complementarity.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
5
Necessary condition for Docking
� Given two molecules find significant surface complementarity :
+
=
Recep
tor Ligand
T
Complex
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
6
Geometric Docking Algorithms
� Based on the assumption of shape complementarity between the participating molecules.
� Molecular surface complementarity - protein-protein, protein-ligand, (protein - drug).
� Hydrogen donor/acceptor complementarity -protein-drug.
Remark : usually “protein” here can be replaced by “DNA” or “RNA” as well.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
7
Issues to be examined when evaluating docking methods
� Rigid docking vs Flexible docking :– If the method allows flexibility:
• Is flexibility allowed for ligand only, receptor only or both ?• No. of flexible bonds allowed and the cost of adding additional flexibility.
� Does the method require prior knowledge of the active site ?� Performance in “unbound” docking experiments.� Speed - ability to explore large libraries.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
8
Bound Docking
� In the bound docking we are given a complex of 2 molecules.
� After artificial separation the goal is to reconstruct the native complex.
� No conformational changes are involved.� Used as a first test of the validity of the algorithm.
Docking Algorithm
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
9
Unbound Docking
� In the unbound docking we are given 2 molecules in their native conformation.
� The goal is to find the correct association.
� Problems: conformational changes (side-chain and backbone movements), experimental errors in the structures.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
10
Bound vs. Unbound10 highly penetrating residues
Kallikrein A/trypsin inhibitor complex (PDB codes 2KAI,6PTI)
Receptor surface
Ligand
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
11
Rigid and Flexible Docking
PDBFiles
MolecularMolecularSurfaceSurface
Focusing OnFocusing OnActive SitesActive Sites
CriticalCriticalFeaturesFeatures
GeometricGeometricMatchingMatching Verification &Verification &
Geometric Geometric ScoringScoring
EnergyEnergyCalculationsCalculations
OtherInputs
Active Sites& Rotationand TranslationPossibilities
Another Flow PossibilityAnother Flow Possibility
One Flow PossibilityOne Flow Possibility
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
12
Recommended Literature – survey papers(see references of major methods therein)� I. Halperin, B. Ma, H. Wolfson & R. Nussinov,
Principles of Docking: An overview of Search Algorithms and a Guide to Scoring Functions, PROTEINS, 47, 409—443, (2002).
� T. Lengauer & M. Rarey, Computational Methods for Biomolecular Docking, Curr. Opin. Struct. Bio., 6, 402—406, (1996).
� G.R. Smith & M. J.E. Sternberg, Prediction of protein-protein interactions by docking methods, Curr. Opin. Struct. Bio., 12, 28—35, (2002).
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
13
Dock - I. Kuntz (pioneering system)Protein - ligand :� Compute Connolly’s MS of the receptor.� Detect cavities by SPHGEN.� Match SPHGEN pseudo-atom centers
with ligand atom centers by detecting cliques in the “docking graph”.
� “Grid based” verification of candidate transformations.
� Calculate energy of binding.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
14
Dock general scheme
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
15
Docking graph� The docking graph is motivated by the
inner distance preservation in rigid bodies.� Vertices - pairs of points (Ri,Lj) belonging to
the receptor and ligand respectively.� Edges btwn a pair of vertices iff the
corresponding inner distances are ‘equal’. � A maximal clique in the graph = maximal
matching subset btwn the receptor and the ligand points.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
16
Clique detection� Detection of all cliques of size < k is NP-
complete (exp in k).� Apply an “interpretation tree” type method
to detect all the cliques of size 4 - O(n8).
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
17
References
� I. Kuntz et al., A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions, J. Mol. Bio., 161, 269—288, (1982).
� T.J.A. Ewing, S. Makino, A.G. Skillman, I.D. Kuntz, Dock 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases, J. Comp. Aided Mol. Design, 15, 411—428, (2001).
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
18
Katchalski-Katzir et al.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
19
Molecular Volume Representation
Given two molecules A and B, projected on a 3D grid of N× N× N size, define the discrete functions a and b as:
=−
molecule theoutside ,0 molecule theinside ,
molecule of surface on the ,1,, ρnmla
=−
molecule theoutside ,0 molecule theinside ,
molecule of surface on the ,1,, δnmlb
l,m,n = 1, 2, ... , N
Goal : Compute a score which favors surface complementarityand penalizes penetration.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
20
γβαγβα +++= = =∑∑∑= nmlnml
N
l
N
m
N
nbac ,,,,
1 1 1,, .
αααα, ββββ, γγγγ - translation in the grid.
What should be the parameters ρρρρ and δδδδ in order to achievethe original goal ?
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
21
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
22
Algorithm
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
23
Katzir et al - summary� Exhaustive enumeration of the rotational and
translational degrees of freedom.� Since the scoring function is represented as a
convolution, the enumeration of the translational degrees of freedom is made efficient exploiting FFT - O(N3 logN).
� Allows introduction of electrostatics as the “complex number” component of the convolution.
� Time consuming, yet conceptually simple and appealing.
� Volumetric – does not use MS representation.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
24
References
� Katchalski-Katzir et al., Molecular surface recognition: Determination of geometric fit between protein and their ligands by correlation techniques, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 89, 2195—2199, (1992).
� H. Gabb, R. Jackson & M. Sternberg, Modellingprotein docking using shape complementarity, electrostatics and biochemical information, J. Mol. Bio, 272, 106—120, (1997).
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
25
Geometric Hashing (Fischer, Lin, Nussinov, Wolfson)
� Connolly’s MS.� SPHGEN or other cavity detection method
(optional).� Caps and pits with “reasonable” patch
support +normals.� Geometric Hashing on points+normals.� Penetration filter.� Energy evaluation.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
26
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
27
Norel, Nussinov, Wolfson (inspired by Connolly)
� Connolly’s MS.� Knobs and holes with associated normals.� Matching of complementary point+normal
pairs .� Geometric score function with a 3 layered
molecule volume representation.� Performed well both in unbound cases and in
protein/DNA - drug docking.� Current variation – PatchDock (Dina
Schneidman-Duhovny et al.)
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
28
Shape feature and signature (Norel et al.)
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
29
Unbound docking examples
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
30
PatchDock Algorithm
� Based on local shape feature matching.� Focuses on local surface patches divided
into three shape types: concave, convex and flat.
� The geometric surface complementarity scoring employs advanced data structures for molecular representation: Distance Transform Grid and Multi-resolution Surface.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
31
Docking Algorithm Scheme� Part 1: Molecular surface representation
� Part 2: Features selection
� Part 3: Matching of critical features
� Part 4: Filtering and scoring of candidate transformations
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
32
1. Surface Representation
� Dense MS surface (Connolly)
� Sparse surface (Shuo Lin et al.)
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
33
1. Surface Representation
� Dense MS surface (Connolly)
� Sparse surface (Shuo Lin et al.)
82,500 points 4,100 points
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
34
Sparse Surface Graph -Gtop
� Caps (yellow), pits (green), belts (red):
� Gtop – Surface topology graph:
V=surface pointsE={(u,v)| u,v belong to the
same atom}
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
35
Docking Algorithm Scheme� Part 1: Molecular
surface representation
� Part 2: Features selection
� Part 3: Matching of critical features
� Part 4: Filtering and scoring of candidate transformations
2.1 Coarse Curvature calculation2.2 Division to surface patches of similar curvature
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
36
2.1 Curvature Calculation• Shape function is a measure of local curvature.
• ‘knobs’ and ‘holes’ are local minima and maxima (<1/3 or >2/3), ‘flats’ –the rest of the points (70%).
knobs flats holes• Problems: sensitivity to molecular movements, 3 sets of points with different sizes.
• Solution: divide the values of the shape function to 3 equal sized sets: ‘knobs’, ‘flats’ and ‘holes’.
knob
hole
flat
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
37
2.2 Patch Detection
Goal: divide the surface into connected, non-intersecting, equal sized patches of critical points with similar curvature.
� connected – the points of the patch correspond to a connected sub-graph of Gtop.
� similar curvature – all the points of the patch correspond to only one type: knobs, flats or holes.
� equal sized – to assure better matching we want shape features of almost the same size.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
38
� Construct a sub-graph for each type of points: knobs, holes, flats. For example Gknob will include all surface points that are knobs and an edge between two ‘knobs’ if they belong to the same atom.
� Compute connected components of every sub-graph.
� Problem: the sizes of the connected components can vary.
� Solution: apply ‘split’ and ‘merge’ routines.
Patch Detection by Segmentation Technique
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
39
Split and Merge� Geodesic distance between two nodes is a
weight of the shortest path between them in surface topology graph. The weight of each edge is equal to the Euclidean distance between the corresponding surface points.
� Diameter of the component – is the largest geodesic distance between the nodes of the component. Nodes s and t that give the diameter are called diameter nodes.
st
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
40
Split and Merge (cont.)� The diameter of every connected component is
computed using the APSP (All pairs shortest paths) algorithm.
1. low_patch_thr ≤ diam ≤ high_patch_thr � valid patch2. diam > high_patch_thr � split3. diam < low_patch_thr � merge
low_patch_thr = 10Åhigh_patch_thr = 20Å
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
41
Split and Merge (cont.)� Split routine: compute Voronoi cells of the
diameter nodes s,t. Points closer to s belong to new component S, points closer to t belong to new component T. The split is applied until the new component has a valid diameter.
� Merge routine: compute the geodesic distance of every component point to all the patches. Merge with the patch with closest distance.
� Note: the merge routine may merge point with patch of different curvature type. s
t
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
42
Examples of Patches for trypsin and trypsin inhibitor
Yellow – knob patches, cyan – hole patches, green – flat patches, the proteins are in blue.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
43
Complementarity of the Patches:
Interface knob patches of the ligand
Interface hole patches of the receptor
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
44
Cox-2 cavity represented by a single hole patch:
Indomethacininside the COX-2 hole patch
Indomethacininside its knob patches
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
45
Shape Representation Part
We focus on sparse surface features, preserving the quality of shape representation.The sparse features reduce the complexity of the matching step.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
46
Active Site FocusingThere are major differences in the interactions of different types of molecules (protease-inhibitor, antibody-antigen, protein drug). Studies have shown the presence of energetic hot spots in the active sites of the molecules.
Protease/inhibitor – select patches with high enrichment of hot spot residues (Ser,Gly,Asp and His for protease; and Arg,Lys,Leu,Cys and Pro for protease inhibitor).
Antibody/antigen – 1.detect CDRs of the antibody. 2. select hot spot patches (Tyr,Asp,Asn,Glu,Ser and Trp for antibody; and Arg,Lys,Asn and Asp for antigen)
Protein/drug – select largest protein cavity (highest value of average shape function for the patch)
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
47
Active Site Focusing
surfacesurfaceresidue
patchpatchresiduei areaarea
areaareapatchresiduepropensity
i
i
//
),(,
,=
• The enrichment of hot spot residue in patch is measured by propensity. Propensity is a ratio of residue frequency in patch and residue frequency in surface.
• The CDRs are detected by aligning the sequence of the given antibody to the consensus sequence of the library of the antibodies.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
48
Docking Algorithm Scheme• Part 1: Molecular surface
representation
• Part 2: Features selection
• Part 3: Matching of critical features
• Part 4: Filtering and scoring of candidate transformations
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
49
3. Matching of patchesThe aim is to align knob patches with hole patches, and flat patches with any patch. We use two types of matching:
• Single Patch Matching – one patch from the receptor is matched with one patch from the ligand. Used in protein-drug cases.
• Patch-Pair Matching – two patches from the receptor are matched with two patches from the ligand. Used in protein-protein cases.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
50
Single Patch Matching
� Base: a pair of critical points with their normals from one patch.
� Match every base from a receptor patch with all the bases from complementary ligand patches.
� Compute the transformation for each pair of matched bases.
Receptor hole patch Ligand knob patch
Transformation
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
51
Patch-Pair MatchingLigand patches
Transformation
Receptor patches
� Base: 1 critical point with its normal from one patch and 1 critical point with its normal from a neighboring patch.
� Match every base from the receptor patches with all the bases from complementary ligand patches.
� Compute the transformation for each pair of matched bases.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
52
Base Compatibility
The signature of the base is defined as follows:
1. Euclidean and geodesic distances between the points: dE, dG
2. The angles α, β between the [a,b] segment and the normals
3. The torsion angle ω between the planes
Two bases are compatible if their signatures match.
dE, dG, α, β, ω
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
53
Geometric Hashing
� Preprocessing: the bases are built for all ligand patches (single or pairs) and stored in hash table according to base signature.
� Recognition: for each receptor base access the hash-table with base signature. The transformations set is computed for all compatible bases.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
54
Clustering
� Since local features are matched, we may have multiple instances of “almost”the same transformation.
� We combine 2 clustering techniques:1.Clustering transformation parameters – coarse but very fast.
2.RMSD clustering – accurate but slow. (according to FLEXX, Rarey et al., 1996)
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
55
Docking Algorithm Scheme� Part 1: Molecular surface representation
� Part 2: Features selection
� Part 3: Matching of critical features
� Part 4: Filtering and scoring of candidate transformations
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
56
Distance Transform GridDense MS surface
(Connolly)
0+1
-1
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
57
Filtering Transformations with Steric Clashes
• Since the transformations were computed by local shape features matching they may include unacceptable stericclashes.
• Candidate complexes with slight penetrations are retained due to molecular flexibility.
Steric clash test: For each candidate ligand transformation
transform ligand surface points For each transformed point
access Distance Transform Grid and check distance valueIf it is more than max_penetrationDisqualify transformation
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
58
Scoring Shape Complementarity
• The scoring is necessary to rank the remaining solutions.
• The surface of the receptor is divided into five shells according to the distance function: S1-S5
[-5.0,-3.6), [-3.6,-2.2), [-2.2, -1.0), [-1.0,1.0), [1.0�).
• The number of ligand surface points in every shell is counted.
• Each shell is given a weight: W1-W5
-10, -6, -2, 1, 0.
• The geometric score is a weighted sum of the number of ligand surface points Ninside every shell:
iS ii
score N W=∑
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
59
Filtering and ScoringPerformance Problem: the number of surface points for high resolution MS surface may reach 100,000. For each candidate transformation, for each surface point we apply the transformation and access distance transform grid.
We develop multi-resolution surface data structure that supports fast queries for penetrations and geometric score.
119,000 points 16,000 points 4,100 points 1,000 points
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
60
Multi-resolution surface (Oct-tree structure)
Level 0: Connolly Surface points
Level 1:
Level 2:
� point� radius� number of leaves� low-level pointers
Node:
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
61
Queries in Multi-resolution surface data structure
� The queries are: isPenetrating(trans, threshold), maxPenetration(trans), score(trans), interface(trans).
� All the searches are performed by DFS.� We check every node from highest level and go
down if it is in interface.� For each node we check distance transform value
and radius. If they are within the threshold we don’t check the children.
� Worst case complexity of each query: O(interface size + highest level size)
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
62
Scoring with Specified Binding Site: Antibody-Antigen Example
• Although only the patches including CDRs are used in the matching stage, the results may still include transformations where most of the interface doesn’t belong to CDRs.
• In addition to regular score, we compute the percentage of the interface included in the CDRs. All the transformations with less than 70% of CDRs are disqualified.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
63
ResultsDatasets:
Protein-Protein docking:� Enzyme-inhibitor – 22 cases� Antibody-antigen – 13 casesProtein-DNA docking: 2 unbound-bound casesProtein-drug docking: tens of bound cases (Estrogen
receptor, HIV protease, COX)Performance:
Several minutes for large protein molecules and seconds for small drug molecules on standard PC computer.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
64
Enzyme-inhibitor cases
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
65
Enzyme-inhibitor results (unbound)
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
66
Antibody-antigen cases
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
67
Antibody-antigen results (unbound)
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
68
Example 1: Enzyme-inhibitor docking (unbound case)
Α-chymotrypsin (5CHA) with Eglin C (1CSE(I)). RMSD 1.46Å, rank 10
trypsininhibitor from complexdocking solution
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
69
Example 2: Antibody-antigen docking (unbound case)
Antibody Fab 5G9 (1FGN) with tissue factor (1BOY). RMSD 2.27Å, rank 8
antibodytissue factor from complexdocking solution
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
70
Example 3: Protein-DNA docking (semi-unbound case)
Endonuclease I-PpoI (1EVX) with DNA (1A73). RMSD 0.87Å, rank 2
DNA strandendonucleasedocking solution
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
71
Example 4: Protein-drug docking (bound case)
Estrogen receptor with estradiol(1A52). RMSD 0.9Å, rank 1, running time: 11 seconds
Estrogen receptorEstradiol from complexdocking solution
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
72
Example 5: Using information from Multiple Structural Alignment
Hemagglutinin molecule
Structurally conserved residues
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
73
Example 5 – final results
RMSD 3.10, Rank 6 (instead of 30), running time: 5 min
The original complex antibody is in red and our solution is in green.
Virus capsidprotein
hemagglutininantibody from complexdocking solution
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
74
Docking Algorithm Scheme� Part 1: Molecular
surface representation
� Part 2: Features selection
� Part 3: Matching of critical features
� Part 4: Filtering and scoring of candidate transformations
WANTED
Biochemical Scoring function !!!
The correct solution is found in 90% of the cases with RMSD under 5A.
The rank of the correct solution can be in the range of 1 – 1000.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
75
Factors that influence the rank of the correct solution
� Shape complementarity� Interface shape – in the concave/convex
interfaces (enzyme-inhibitor, receptor-drug), shape complementarity is easier to detect comparing to flat interfaces (antibody-antigen).
� Sizes of molecules – the larger the molecules the higher the number of the false-positive results.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
76
Flexible Docking - general methodology
Three major approaches :
� Rigid subpart docking :– Split the flexible molecule into rigid subparts.– Dock independently each subpart.– Pair the top hypotheses for each subpart to detect
hinge consistency.Example : Des Jarlais, Sheridan, Dixon, Kuntz,
Venkatraghavan (1986).
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
77
� Anchor fragment method :– Position a ‘preferred’ anchor fragment. – Rotate sequentially the flexible bonds to position the
other fragments.Example: Leach & Kuntz (1992); Lengauer et al. - FLEXX.
� Hinge scoring method:– Incorporate bond information already in the initial
filtering steps by accumulating information at the hinges. – No preference for specific parts. Reminds the first
method yet exploits the consistency of neighboring part placement in the initial stages.
Example : Sandak, Nussinov, Wolfson (1995).
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
78
GGH based flexible docking
Applies either to flexible ligands or to flexible receptors.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
79
General Algorithm outline
Can be applied either to a dataset of ligands vs a receptor or a dataset of receptors vs. a ligand.
� Calculate the molecular surface of the receptor and the ligands and their interest points (+ normals).
� Match the interest points and recover candidate multi-transformations.
� Check for inter-molecule and intra-molecule penetrations and score the amount of contact.
� Rank by energies.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
80
Point Matching algorithm- prepr.
� For each database molecule :
– Define r.f.’s at every hinge.– For each minimal feature (e.g. triplet) compute an r.f.
and shape signature.– For each (triplet based) reference frame compute the
transformation btwn that frame and the hinge based frame and store (molec., part, r.f., transf.) in a hash (lookup) table at an entry addressed by the r.f. shape signature.
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
81
Point Matching algorithm- recognition
� For the target molecule :– For each minimal feature compute an r.f. and shape
signature.– Access the table by the shape signature, and for
each transformation appearing there :• transform the r.f. to ‘hypothesized’ hinge position;• advance the counter of that hinge location for the appropriate
molecule and part.
– Check highest scoring hinges .– Verify the resulting transformations .
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
82
Flexible DockingCalmodulin with M13 ligand
Structural Bioinformatics 2004 Prof. Haim J. Wolfson
83
Flexible Docking HIV Protease Inhibitor
Top Related