Skip to content


  • Poster presentation
  • Open Access

Ligand-side tautomer enumeration and scoring for structure-based drug-design

  • 1 and
  • 1
Journal of Cheminformatics20102 (Suppl 1) :P32

  • Published:


  • Pharmacophore Model
  • Ranking Algorithm
  • Molecular Shape
  • Molecule Lead
  • Putative Binding

Tautomeric rearrangements of a molecule lead to distinct equilibrated structural states of the same chemical compound that may differ significantly in molecular shape, surface, nature of functional groups, hydrogen-bonding pattern and other derived molecular properties [1]. Especially for the structure-based pharmacophore modeling of ligand-protein complexes [2], knowledge of the most favorable tautomeric ligand states may be crucial for the quality and correctness of the generated pharmacophore models and derived putative binding modes. We will present a ligand-side tautomer enumeration and ranking algorithm that considers both geometrical constraints imposed by the conformation of the bound ligand as well as intra- and inter-molecular energetic contributions to find the preferred tautomeric states of the ligand in the macromolecular environment of the binding-site. The presented tautomer ranking algorithm is based on scores that are derived solely from MMFF94 [39] energies (thus the method works for a wide range of organic molecules) and has proven to be able to top-rank known preferred tautomeric states of ligands in a series of investigated protein complexes.

Authors’ Affiliations

Inte:Ligand GmbH, Mariahilferstrasse 74B/11, A-1070 Vienna, Austria


  1. Pospisil P, et al: J Recept Signal Transduct. 2003, 23: 361-371. 10.1081/RRS-120026975.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Wolber G, Langer T: J Chem Inf Model. 2005, 45: 160-169. 10.1021/ci049885e.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Halgren TA: J Comput Chem. 1996, 17: 490-519. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199604)17:5/6<490::AID-JCC1>3.0.CO;2-P.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Halgren TA: J Comput Chem. 1996, 17: 520-552. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199604)17:5/6<520::AID-JCC2>3.0.CO;2-W.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Halgren TA: J Comput Chem. 1996, 17: 553-586. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199604)17:5/6<553::AID-JCC3>3.0.CO;2-T.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Halgren TA, Nachbar RB: J Comput Chem. 1996, 17: 587-615.Google Scholar
  7. Halgren TA: J Comput Chem. 1996, 17: 616-651. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199604)17:5/6<616::AID-JCC5>3.0.CO;2-X.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Halgren TA: J Comput Chem. 1999, 20: 720-729. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199905)20:7<720::AID-JCC7>3.0.CO;2-X.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Halgren TA: J Comput Chem. 1999, 20: 730-748. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199905)20:7<730::AID-JCC8>3.0.CO;2-T.View ArticleGoogle Scholar


© Thomas and Wolber; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd.