Abstract
Although the thermodynamic principles that control the binding of drug molecules to their protein targets are well understood, detailed experimental characterization of the process by which such binding occurs has proven challenging. We conducted relatively long, unguided molecular dynamics simulations in which a ligand (the cancer drug dasatinib or the kinase inhibitor PP1) was initially placed at a random location within a box that also contained a protein (Src kinase) to which that ligand was known to bind. In several of these simulations, the ligand correctly identified its target binding site, forming a complex virtually identical to the crystallographically determined bound structure. The simulated trajectories provide a continuous, atomic-level view of the entire binding process, revealing persistent and noteworthy intermediate conformations and shedding light on the role of water molecules. The technique we employed, which does not assume any prior knowledge of the binding site’s location, may prove particularly useful in the development of allosteric inhibitors that target previously undiscovered binding sites.
The vast majority of all drugs act by binding to protein targets, but the physical process by which drugs and other ligands bind to proteins has proven difficult to elucidate, particularly at the single-molecule level. Here we report molecular dynamics (MD) simulations that capture this process, from beginning to end, in full atomic detail. In our simulations, the cancer drug dasatinib (Sprycel®) and the kinase inhibitor PP1 bound spontaneously to their target, Src kinase, to produce complexes whose structures are virtually identical to those captured by X-ray crystallography (1, 2) (Figure 1B). As far as we are aware, these are the first crystallographically accurate simulations of ligand binding that do not rely on prior knowledge of the binding site’s location or on electrostatic forces that attract the ligand to its binding site from a distance: our simulations began with ligands positioned at random locations, the ligands were uncharged, and no artificial attractive forces were employed. The simulated ligands circled the target protein extensively before finding the binding site (Figure 1A).
Dasatinib found and bound to its binding site after 2.3 µs in one of four separate simulations, which together totaled 35 µs. In the simulation in which the dasatinib molecule reached the native binding pose, the molecule was mostly in the vicinity of the N-lobe (β-sheet) region; in other simulations, however, dasatinib contacted many other regions of Src kinase. PP1 bound after 15.1, 1.9, and 0.6 µs, respectively, in 3 of 7 separate simulations totaling 115 µs (Figure 2A). Although the accurate calculation of binding on-rates would require substantially more binding events than we have observed, these on-rates may be estimated from our simulations to be ~1.9 s−1 µM−1 for dasatinib and ~4.3 s−1 µM−1 for PP1; notably, the estimate for dasatinib is in line with the experimentally measured value (~5 s−1 µM−1) (4).
It has been suggested that protein–ligand binding involves funnel-like free-energy landscapes (5, 6) whose global minima correspond to the native conformations of the bound complexes. Our binding simulations—each of which demonstrates a presumably global energetic minimum corresponding to the native binding pose (i.e., that observed in X-ray structures), local energy minima corresponding to the trapping of the ligand in non-native poses, and a funnel-shaped energy landscape that extends to ~10 Å root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) from the native pose (Figure 1C)—are highly consistent with this scenario.
Water molecules are known to play a critical role in protein–ligand binding (7, 8). In addition to correctly identifying the native ligand-binding poses of PP1 and dasatinib, our simulations resolved the locations of water molecules observed in X-ray structures of the Src–PP1 complex (Figure 2B). The simulations also revealed an intermediate state preceding PP1 binding, in which a single shell of water molecules separates the protein and ligand in the binding site (conformation a; Figure 2B). Our simulations suggest that this water shell, which survives for approximately 0.1 µs before being disrupted upon PP1 binding, gives rise to a kinetic barrier to binding. A similar water shell is also observed immediately before dasatinib adopts its crystallographic binding pose (Figure 2D).
An emerging challenge in drug discovery concerns the identification of allosteric ligand-binding sites, through which drugs can modulate the effects of ligands that bind at the primary site. Allosteric binding sites may be obscure and underformed in the protein conformations captured by most X-ray structures. While the great majority of kinase inhibitors, including dasatinib and PP1, bind at the ATP-binding site, several allosteric sites have been identified in kinases (9). The fact that PP1 molecules are repeatedly trapped at these alternative sites (Figure 1A) highlights the potential of such simulations as a tool for discovering allosteric sites. We identified, for example, a previously unreported binding site—a pocket, located between the αFG and αGH loops and the αF and αG helices, to which PP1 (and, in later simulations, dasatinib) bound—which is too shallow to accommodate PP1 or dasatinib in the X-ray structure (Figures 1A and 2C).
An ongoing ligand-design effort targeting this putative allosteric binding site is currently underway in our laboratory.
More generally, an important limitation of traditional virtual drug screening is that it must start with a well-defined binding site, despite promising recent developments (10, 11). By allowing the identification of previously unknown binding sites, MD simulations of protein–ligand binding, such as those presented here, may substantially broaden the applicability of computational techniques to drug development.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
We thank Prof. Bruce Berne of Columbia University and Prof. Jin Wang of Stony Brook University for helpful discussions.
Footnotes
Supporting Information. Methods of simulation and analysis; movie of dasatinib binding. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
REFERENCES
- 1.Sicheri F, Moarefi I, Kuriyan J. Nature. 1997;385:602. doi: 10.1038/385602a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Getlik M, Grütter C, Simard JR, Klüter S, Rabiller M, Rode HB, Robubi A, Rauh D. J. Med. Chem. 2009;52:3915. doi: 10.1021/jm9002928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Onufriev A, Bashford D, Case DA. J. Phys. Chem. B. 2000;104:3712. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Shan Y, Seeliger MA, Eastwood MP, Frank F, Xu H, Jensen MØ, Dror RO, Kuriyan J, Shaw DE. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009;106:139. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811223106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Bryngelson JD, Onuchic JN, Socci ND, Wolynes PG. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Bioinf. 1995;21:167. doi: 10.1002/prot.340210302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Wang J, Verkhivker GM. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003;90 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.188101. 188101-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ladbury JE. Chem. Biol. 1996;3:973. doi: 10.1016/s1074-5521(96)90164-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Young T, Abel R, Kim B, Berne BJ, Friesner RA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007;104:808. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0610202104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Taylor SS, Kornev AP. Trends Biomed. Sci. 2011;36:65. doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2010.09.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Hetényi C, van der Spoel D. FEBS Lett. 2006;580:1447. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2006.01.074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Davis IW, Raha K, Head MS, Baker D. Protein Sci. 2009;18:1998. doi: 10.1002/pro.192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.