Category Archives: Protein Structure

Retrieving AlphaFold models from AlphaFoldDB

There are now nearly a million AlphaFold [1] protein structure predictions openly available via AlphaFoldDB [2]. This represents a huge set of new data that can be used for the development of new methods. The options for downloading structures are either in bulk (sorted by genome), or individually from the webpage for a prediction.

If you want just a few hundred or a few thousand specific structures, across different genomes, neither of these options are particularly practical. For example, if you have several thousand experimental structures for which you have their PDB [3] code, and you want to obtain the equivalent AlphaFold predictions, there is another way!

If we take the example of the PDB’s current molecule of the month, pyruvate kinase (PDB code 4FXF), this is how you can go about downloading the equivalent AlphaFold prediction programmatically.

  1. Query UniProt [4] for the corresponding accession number – an example python script is shown below:
Continue reading →

Meeko: Docking straight from SMILES string

When docking, using software like AutoDock Vina, you must prepare your ligand by protonating the molecule, generating 3D coordinates, and converting it to a specific file format (in the case of Vina, PDBQT). Docking software typically needs the protein and ligand file inputs to be written on disk. This is limiting as generating 10,000s of files for a large virtual screen can be annoying and hinder the speed at which you dock.

Fortunately, the Forli group in Scripps Research have developed a Python package, Meeko, to prepare ligands directly from SMILES or other molecule formats for docking to AutoDock 4 or Vina, without writing any files to disk. This means you can dock directly from a single file containing all the SMILES of the ligands you are investigating!

Continue reading →

5th Artificial Intelligence in Chemistry Symposium

The lineup for the Royal Society of Chemistry’s 5th “Artificial Intelligence in Chemistry” Symposium (Thursday-Friday, 1st-2nd September 2022) is now complete for both oral and poster presentations. It really is a fantastic selection of topics and speakers and it is clear this event is now a highlight of the scientific calendar. Our very own Prof. Charlotte M. Deane, MBE will be giving a keynote.

5th RSC-BMCS/RSC-CICAG Airtificial Intelligence in Chemistry Symposium, 1st-2nd September, Churchill College, Cambridge + Zoom broadcast.

It marks a return to in-person meetings: it will be held at Churchill College, Cambridge, with a conference dinner at Trinity Hall.

More details are here: https://www.rscbmcs.org/events/aichem22/.

Registration for in person attendance is open until Monday 29th August 17:00 (BST).

It is also possible to register for virtual attendance; the meeting will be broadcast on Zoom.

, ,

The SARS-CoV-2 protein spike glycosylation not only shields but primes binding by providing structural stability too

Yep, it is very well known that the sugar coating (aka glycosylation) of viruses makes them invisible to the immune system, a strategy so effective that like in the case of HIV, whose spike is almost entirely covered by glycans, makes it so difficult to target by the human immune system.

Unsurprisingly, coronaviruses such as SARS, MERS, and SARS-CoV-1(2) not only benefit from this evolutionary strategy but there is evidence now that sugars provide stability to their spikes to be effective binders by glueing the spike chains, hence making them infectious.

This is the major finding of this paper that introduces very interesting results from all-atom MD simulations of a fully glycosylated model of the  SARS-CoV-2 spike protein embedded in a realistic viral membrane. Researchers aimed to look into the stability of the protein spike (A, B, and C) chains in the “open” and “closed” conformation and how these changed upon key residue mutations to test how glycans sitting in the inter-chain space affect stability. It also aimed at quantifying glycans’ shielding effect from molecules ranging from 2 to 15 Angstroms, i.e., from small-sized to peptide- and antibody-sized molecules.  

Continue reading →

Monoclonal antibody PRNP100 therapy for Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease

Recently, University College London Hospitals (UCLH) received a “Specials License” to allow the treatment of six patients suffering from Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease (CJD), by way of a novel antibody known as PRN100. The results of this treatment have now been published in The Lancet.

There is currently no cure for CJD, yet over 100 people per year develop it either spontaneously or through external means including (but not limited to) growth hormones, cataract surgery or infected neurosurgical implements [1]. “There is no UK legislation which implements a compassionate use programme as set out in Article 83 of the relevant EU regulation. But the UK has implemented an exemption process known as the “Specials” in light of the requirement to be able to deal with special needs.” [2]

As there is no known cure, the request for use of PRN100 was put before the court as in Law “Some treatment decisions are so serious that the court has to make them.”

Continue reading →

CryoEM is now the dominant technique for solving antibody structures

Last year, the Structural Antibody Database (SAbDab) listed a record-breaking 894 new antibody structures, driven in no small part by the continued efforts of the researchers to understand SARS-CoV-2.

Fig. 1: The aggregate growth in antibody structure data (all methods) over time. Taken from http://opig.stats.ox.ac.uk/webapps/newsabdab/sabdab/stats/ on 25th May 2022.

In this blog post I wanted to highlight the major driving force behind this curve – the huge increase in cryo electron microscopy (cryoEM) data – and the implications of this for the field of structure-based antibody informatics.

Continue reading →

MM(PB/GB)SA – a quick start guide

The MMPBSA.py program distributed Open Source in the AmberTools21 package is a powerful tool for end-point free energy calculations on molecular dynamics simulations. In its most simple application, MMPBSA.py is used to calculate the free energy difference between the bound and unbound states of a protein-ligand complex. In order to use it, however, you need to have an Amber-compliant trajectory file, which means you need to setup and run your simulation fairly carefully.

While the Amber Manual and the MMPBSA tutorial provide lots of helpful information, putting everything together into a full pipeline taking you from structure to a free energy is another story. The goal for this guide is to provide a schematic you can follow to get started. This guide assumes you are familiar with molecular dynamics simulations and the theory of MMPBSA.

The easiest way I have found to do this, using only Open Source software, is:

(1) Download your raw PDB file. If you are lucky and it contains a complete set of heavy atoms (excepting perhaps a terminal OXT here and there, which tleap will add for you in step 3) you are good to go.

(2) Use the H++ webserver to determine the protonation states of each residue and add hydrogens as needed. This webserver is particularly convenient because it will allow you to directly download a PQR file that you can use to generate your starting topology and coordinates. Note that you have various options to choose the pH and internal/external dielectric constants for the calculation.

(3) Use tleap to generate your topology (prmtop) and coordinate (mdcor) files for your simulations. Do not forget that you will need not only the prmtop for the solvated complex, but also a dry prmtop for each of the complex, receptor, and ligand. Load the PQR file from H++ and do not forget to set PBRadii *to the same value for all prmtops*. A typical tleap script for setting up your solvated complex would look something like:

Continue reading →

OpenMM Setup: Start Simulating Proteins in 5 Minutes

Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are a good way to explore the dynamical behaviour of a protein you might be interested in. One common problem is that they often have a relatively steep learning curve when using most MD engines.

What if you just want to run a simple, one-off simulation with no fancy enhanced sampling methods? OpenMM Setup is a useful tool for exactly this. It is built on the open-source OpenMM engine and provides an easy to install (via conda) GUI that can have you running a simulation in less than 5 minutes. Of course, running a simulation requires careful setting of parameters and being familiar with best practices and while this is beyond the scope of this post, there are many guides out there that can easily be found. Now on to the good stuff: using OpenMM Setup!

When you first run OpenMM Setup, you’ll be greeted by a browser window asking you to choose a structure to use. This can be a crystal structure or a model. Remember, sometimes these will have problems that need fixing like missing density or charged, non-physiological termini that would lead to artefacts, so visual inspection of the input is key! You can then choose the force field and water model you want to use, and tell OpenMM to do some cleaning up of the structure. Here I am running the simulation on hen egg-white lysozyme:

Continue reading →

Fragment Based Drug Discovery with Crystallographic Fragment Screening at XChem and Beyond

Disclaimer: I’m a current PhD student working on PanDDA 2 for Frank von Delft and Charlotte Deane, and sponsored by Global Phasing, and some of this is my opinion – if it isn’t obvious in one of the references I probably said it so take it with a pinch of salt

Fragment Based Drug Discovery

Principle

Fragment based drugs discovery (FBDD) is a technique for finding lead compounds for medicinal chemistry. In FBDD a protein target of interest is identified for inhibition and a small library, typically of a few hundred compounds, is screened against it. Though these typically bind weakly, they can be used as a starting point for chemical elaboration towards something more lead-like. This approach is primarily contrasted with high throughput screening (HTS), in which an enormous number of larger, more complex molecules are screened in order to find ones which bind. The key idea is recognizing that the molecules in these HTS libraries can typically be broken down into a much smaller number of common substructures, fragments, so screening these ought to be more informative: between them they describe more of the “chemical space” which interacts with the protein. Since it first appeared about 25 years ago, FBDD has delivered four drugs for clinical use and over 40 molecules to clinical trials.

Continue reading →

Model validation in Crystallographic Fragment Screening

Fragment based drug discovery is a powerful technique for finding lead compounds for medicinal chemistry. Crystallographic fragment screening is particularly useful because it informs one not just about whether a fragment binds, but has the advantage of providing information on how it binds. This information allows for rational elaboration and merging of fragments.

However, this comes with a unique challenge: the confidence in the experimental readout, if and how a fragment binds, is tied to the quality of the crystallographic model that can be built. This intimately links crystallographic fragment screening to the general statistical idea of a “model”, and the statistical ideas of goodness of fit and overfitting.

Continue reading →