Literature DB >> 15847516

Comparison of efficiency and bias of free energies computed by exponential averaging, the Bennett acceptance ratio, and thermodynamic integration.

Michael R Shirts1, Vijay S Pande.   

Abstract

Recent work has demonstrated the Bennett acceptance ratio method is the best asymptotically unbiased method for determining the equilibrium free energy between two end states given work distributions collected from either equilibrium and nonequilibrium data. However, it is still not clear what the practical advantage of this acceptance ratio method is over other common methods in atomistic simulations. In this study, we first review theoretical estimates of the bias and variance of exponential averaging (EXP), thermodynamic integration (TI), and the Bennett acceptance ratio (BAR). In the process, we present a new simple scheme for computing the variance and bias of many estimators, and demonstrate the connections between BAR and the weighted histogram analysis method. Next, a series of analytically solvable toy problems is examined to shed more light on the relative performance in terms of the bias and efficiency of these three methods. Interestingly, it is impossible to conclusively identify a "best" method for calculating the free energy, as each of the three methods performs more efficiently than the others in at least one situation examined in these toy problems. Finally, sample problems of the insertion/deletion of both a Lennard-Jones particle and a much larger molecule in TIP3P water are examined by these three methods. In all tests of atomistic systems, free energies obtained with BAR have significantly lower bias and smaller variance than when using EXP or TI, especially when the overlap in phase space between end states is small. For example, BAR can extract as much information from multiple fast, far-from-equilibrium simulations as from fewer simulations near equilibrium, which EXP cannot. Although TI and sometimes even EXP can be somewhat more efficient in idealized toy problems, in the realistic atomistic situations tested in this paper, BAR is significantly more efficient than all other methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15847516     DOI: 10.1063/1.1873592

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Phys        ISSN: 0021-9606            Impact factor:   3.488


  74 in total

1.  Theory of binless multi-state free energy estimation with applications to protein-ligand binding.

Authors:  Zhiqiang Tan; Emilio Gallicchio; Mauro Lapelosa; Ronald M Levy
Journal:  J Chem Phys       Date:  2012-04-14       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 2.  From laptop to benchtop to bedside: structure-based drug design on protein targets.

Authors:  Lu Chen; John K Morrow; Hoang T Tran; Sharangdhar S Phatak; Lei Du-Cuny; Shuxing Zhang
Journal:  Curr Pharm Des       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.116

3.  Predicting absolute ligand binding free energies to a simple model site.

Authors:  David L Mobley; Alan P Graves; John D Chodera; Andrea C McReynolds; Brian K Shoichet; Ken A Dill
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2007-06-08       Impact factor: 5.469

4.  A dynamic view of enzyme catalysis.

Authors:  Aurora Jiménez; Pere Clapés; Ramon Crehuet
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2008-03-06       Impact factor: 1.810

5.  Molecular basis of the apparent near ideality of urea solutions.

Authors:  Hironori Kokubo; Jörg Rösgen; D Wayne Bolen; B Montgomery Pettitt
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2007-08-10       Impact factor: 4.033

Review 6.  CHARMM: the biomolecular simulation program.

Authors:  B R Brooks; C L Brooks; A D Mackerell; L Nilsson; R J Petrella; B Roux; Y Won; G Archontis; C Bartels; S Boresch; A Caflisch; L Caves; Q Cui; A R Dinner; M Feig; S Fischer; J Gao; M Hodoscek; W Im; K Kuczera; T Lazaridis; J Ma; V Ovchinnikov; E Paci; R W Pastor; C B Post; J Z Pu; M Schaefer; B Tidor; R M Venable; H L Woodcock; X Wu; W Yang; D M York; M Karplus
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2009-07-30       Impact factor: 3.376

7.  Statistically optimal analysis of samples from multiple equilibrium states.

Authors:  Michael R Shirts; John D Chodera
Journal:  J Chem Phys       Date:  2008-09-28       Impact factor: 3.488

8.  Solvation free energies of alanine peptides: the effect of flexibility.

Authors:  Hironori Kokubo; Robert C Harris; Dilipkumar Asthagiri; B Montgomery Pettitt
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2013-12-13       Impact factor: 2.991

9.  A New Maximum Likelihood Approach for Free Energy Profile Construction from Molecular Simulations.

Authors:  Tai-Sung Lee; Brian K Radak; Anna Pabis; Darrin M York
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 6.006

Review 10.  Methods for calculating the entropy and free energy and their application to problems involving protein flexibility and ligand binding.

Authors:  Hagai Meirovitch; Srinath Cheluvaraja; Ronald P White
Journal:  Curr Protein Pept Sci       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.272

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.