Flexible ligand docking using evolutionary algorithms: investigating the effects of variation operators and local search hybrids.

The docking of ligands to proteins can be formulated as a computational problem where the task is to find the most favorable energetic conformation among the large space of possible protein-ligand complexes. Stochastic search methods such as evolutionary algorithms (EAs) can be used to sample large search spaces effectively and is one of the commonly used methods for flexible ligand docking. During the last decade, several EAs using different variation operators have been introduced, such as the ones provided with the AutoDock program. In this paper we evaluate the performance of different EA settings such as choice of variation operators, population size, and usage of local search. The comparison is performed on a suite of six docking problems previously used to evaluate the performance of search algorithms provided with the AutoDock program package. The results from our investigation confirm that the choice of variation operators has an impact on the search-capabilities of EAs. The introduced DockEA using the best settings found obtained the overall best docking solutions compared to the Lamarckian GA (LGA) provided with AutoDock. Furthermore, the DockEA proved to be more robust than the LGA (in terms of reproducing the results in several runs) on the more difficult problems with a high number of flexible torsion angles.

[1]  David E. Clark,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms in Molecular Design , 1999 .

[2]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.

[3]  Lawrence J. Fogel,et al.  Artificial Intelligence through Simulated Evolution , 1966 .

[4]  Xin Yao,et al.  Fast Evolutionary Programming , 1996, Evolutionary Programming.

[5]  D. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing , 1990, Proteins.

[6]  Hans-Paul Schwefel,et al.  Parallel Problem Solving from Nature — PPSN IV , 1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[7]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[8]  David B. Fogel,et al.  A Preliminary Investigation into Directed Mutations in Evolutionary Algorithms , 1996, PPSN.

[9]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Handbook of Evolutionary Computation , 1997 .

[10]  A. Leach,et al.  Ligand docking to proteins with discrete side-chain flexibility. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[11]  Dr. Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  How to Solve It: Modern Heuristics , 2004 .

[12]  Zbigniew Michalewicz,et al.  Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs , 1996, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[13]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  Distributed automated docking of flexible ligands to proteins: Parallel applications of AutoDock 2.4 , 1996, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[14]  Rafael Najmanovich,et al.  Side‐chain flexibility in proteins upon ligand binding , 2000, Proteins.

[15]  Robin Taylor,et al.  A new test set for validating predictions of protein–ligand interaction , 2002, Proteins.

[16]  David E. Clark,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms in computer-aided molecular design , 1996, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[17]  Ingo Rechenberg,et al.  Evolutionsstrategie : Optimierung technischer Systeme nach Prinzipien der biologischen Evolution , 1973 .

[18]  Zhenya He,et al.  Swarm directions embedded in fast evolutionary programming , 2002, Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No.02TH8600).

[19]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function , 1998 .

[20]  David E. Clark,et al.  A comparison of heuristic search algorithms for molecular docking , 1997, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[21]  William E. Hart,et al.  Improved Evolutionary Hybrids for Flexible Ligand Docking in Autodock , 2000 .

[22]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[23]  William E. Hart,et al.  A Comparison of Global and Local Search Methods in Drug Docking , 1997, ICGA.

[24]  D. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking to multiple target structures: Incorporation of protein mobility and structural water heterogeneity in AutoDock , 2002, Proteins.

[25]  C. Sander,et al.  An effective solvation term based on atomic occupancies for use in protein simulations , 1993 .

[26]  Panos M. Pardalos,et al.  Optimization in Computational Chemistry and Molecular Biology , 2000 .

[27]  Roger J.-B. Wets,et al.  Minimization by Random Search Techniques , 1981, Math. Oper. Res..

[28]  P Willett,et al.  Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.