Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 19, 2026

Incorporating Target Protein Structure Flexibility and Dynamics in Computational Drug Discovery Using Ensemble-Based Docking Analysis
Published on: June 20, 2025
Lessons learned in induced fit docking and metadynamics in the Drug Design Data Resource Grand Challenge 2
Matthew P Baumgartner1, David A Evans2
1Computational Chemistry and Cheminformatics, Eli Lilly and Company Ltd., Windlesham, UK.
Abstract:
Two of the major ongoing challenges in computational drug discovery are predicting the binding pose and affinity of a compound to a protein. The Drug Design Data Resource Grand Challenge 2 was developed to address these problems and to drive development of new methods. The challenge provided the 2D structures of compounds for which the organizers help blinded data in the form of 35 X-ray crystal structures and 102 binding affinity measurements and challenged participants to predict the binding pose and affinity of the compounds. We tested a number of pose prediction methods as part of the challenge; we found that docking methods that incorporate protein flexibility (Induced Fit Docking) outperformed methods that treated the protein as rigid. We also found that using binding pose metadynamics, a molecular dynamics based method, to score docked poses provided the best predictions of our methods with an average RMSD of 2.01 Å. We tested both structure-based (e.g. docking) and ligand-based methods (e.g. QSAR) in the affinity prediction portion of the competition. We found that our structure-based methods based on docking with Smina (Spearman ρ = 0.614), performed slightly better than our ligand-based methods (ρ = 0.543), and had equivalent performance with the other top methods in the competition. Despite the overall good performance of our methods in comparison to other participants in the challenge, there exists significant room for improvement especially in cases such as these where protein flexibility plays such a large role.
More Related Videos
05:08Application of I TASSER, trRosetta, UCSF Chimera, HADDOCK server, and HEX loria for De Novo and In Silico Design of Proteins
Published on: July 8, 2025
10:33Development of Inhibitors of Protein-protein Interactions through REPLACE: Application to the Design and Development Non-ATP Competitive CDK Inhibitors
Published on: October 26, 2015
Related Concept Videos
Structure-Activity Relationships and Drug Design
SAR studies the intricate relationship between a drug's chemical structure and biological activity. It focuses on understanding how modifications to a drug's structure can influence...
Drug Discovery: Overview
Ligand Binding Sites
Protein-ligand interactions are quite specific; even though numerous potential ligands surround a cellular protein at any given time, only a particular ligand can bind to that protein. Moreover, a ligand binds only to a dedicated area on the surface of the protein, known as the...
Protein-Drug Binding: Mechanism and Kinetics
Various forces drive these interactions, including hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic interactions, ionic bonds, electrostatic interactions, and van der Waals forces. These bonds enable drugs to bind to specific sites on proteins,...
Induced-fit Model
Enzymes exhibit substrate specificity, meaning that they can only bind to certain substrates. This is mainly determined by the shape and chemical...
Protein-Drug Binding: Determination Methods
Indirect methods involve isolating the bound drug from its free form in biological samples such as blood, serum, or plasma. These techniques aim to measure the percentage of drugs bound to proteins. Equilibrium dialysis is a commonly used method where the free drug concentration at equilibrium is measured by separating the bound...