Literature DB >> 22198518

Binding affinities in the SAMPL3 trypsin and host-guest blind tests estimated with the MM/PBSA and LIE methods.

Paulius Mikulskis1, Samuel Genheden, Patrik Rydberg, Lars Sandberg, Lars Olsen, Ulf Ryde.   

Abstract

We have estimated affinities for the binding of 34 ligands to trypsin and nine guest molecules to three different hosts in the SAMPL3 blind challenge, using the MM/PBSA, MM/GBSA, LIE, continuum LIE, and Glide score methods. For the trypsin challenge, none of the methods were able to accurately predict the experimental results. For the MM/GB(PB)SA and LIE methods, the rankings were essentially random and the mean absolute deviations were much worse than a null hypothesis giving the same affinity to all ligand. Glide scoring gave a Kendall's τ index better than random, but the ranking is still only mediocre, τ = 0.2. However, the range of affinities is small and most of the pairs of ligands have an experimental affinity difference that is not statistically significant. Removing those pairs improves the ranking metric to 0.4-1.0 for all methods except CLIE. Half of the trypsin ligands were non-binders according to the binding assay. The LIE methods could not separate the inactive ligands from the active ones better than a random guess, whereas MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA were slightly better than random (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve, AUC = 0.65-0.68), and Glide scoring was even better (AUC = 0.79). For the first host, MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA reproduce the experimental ranking fairly good, with τ = 0.6 and 0.5, respectively, whereas the Glide scoring was considerably worse, with a τ = 0.4, highlighting that the success of the methods is system-dependent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22198518     DOI: 10.1007/s10822-011-9524-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des        ISSN: 0920-654X            Impact factor:   3.686


  41 in total

1.  Fast, efficient generation of high-quality atomic charges. AM1-BCC model: II. Parameterization and validation.

Authors:  Araz Jakalian; David B Jack; Christopher I Bayly
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.376

2.  Binding affinity prediction with different force fields: examination of the linear interaction energy method.

Authors:  Martin Almlöf; Bjørn O Brandsdal; Johan Aqvist
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2004-07-30       Impact factor: 3.376

3.  The SAMPL2 blind prediction challenge: introduction and overview.

Authors:  Matthew T Geballe; A Geoffrey Skillman; Anthony Nicholls; J Peter Guthrie; Peter J Taylor
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-05-09       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  Comparison of multiple Amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters.

Authors:  Viktor Hornak; Robert Abel; Asim Okur; Bentley Strockbine; Adrian Roitberg; Carlos Simmerling
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2006-11-15

5.  Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes.

Authors:  Richard A Friesner; Robert B Murphy; Matthew P Repasky; Leah L Frye; Jeremy R Greenwood; Thomas A Halgren; Paul C Sanschagrin; Daniel T Mainz
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2006-10-19       Impact factor: 7.446

6.  The refined crystal structure of bovine beta-trypsin at 1.8 A resolution. I. Crystallization, data collection and application of patterson search technique.

Authors:  H Fehlhammer; W Bode
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1975-11-15       Impact factor: 5.469

7.  A blind challenge for computational solvation free energies: introduction and overview.

Authors:  J Peter Guthrie
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2009-04-09       Impact factor: 2.991

8.  Accurate predictions of nonpolar solvation free energies require explicit consideration of binding-site hydration.

Authors:  Samuel Genheden; Paulius Mikulskis; LiHong Hu; Jacob Kongsted; Pär Söderhjelm; Ulf Ryde
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2011-07-29       Impact factor: 15.419

9.  Ligand binding affinity prediction by linear interaction energy methods.

Authors:  T Hansson; J Marelius; J Aqvist
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 3.686

10.  A new method for predicting binding affinity in computer-aided drug design.

Authors:  J Aqvist; C Medina; J E Samuelsson
Journal:  Protein Eng       Date:  1994-03
View more
  16 in total

1.  Predicting hydration free energies with chemical accuracy: the SAMPL4 challenge.

Authors:  Lars Sandberg
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Effect of explicit water molecules on ligand-binding affinities calculated with the MM/GBSA approach.

Authors:  Paulius Mikulskis; Samuel Genheden; Ulf Ryde
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2014-05-29       Impact factor: 1.810

3.  Large scale affinity calculations of cyclodextrin host-guest complexes: Understanding the role of reorganization in the molecular recognition process.

Authors:  Lauren Wickstrom; Peng He; Emilio Gallicchio; Ronald M Levy
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 6.006

4.  MM/GBSA and LIE estimates of host-guest affinities: dependence on charges and solvation model.

Authors:  Samuel Genheden
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2011-11-19       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  Machine learning accelerates MD-based binding pose prediction between ligands and proteins.

Authors:  Kei Terayama; Hiroaki Iwata; Mitsugu Araki; Yasushi Okuno; Koji Tsuda
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 6.937

6.  Parameterization of an effective potential for protein-ligand binding from host-guest affinity data.

Authors:  Lauren Wickstrom; Nanjie Deng; Peng He; Ahmet Mentes; Crystal Nguyen; Michael K Gilson; Tom Kurtzman; Emilio Gallicchio; Ronald M Levy
Journal:  J Mol Recognit       Date:  2015-08-10       Impact factor: 2.137

7.  D3R Grand Challenge 4: ligand similarity and MM-GBSA-based pose prediction and affinity ranking for BACE-1 inhibitors.

Authors:  Sukanya Sasmal; Léa El Khoury; David L Mobley
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  Free-energy perturbation and quantum mechanical study of SAMPL4 octa-acid host-guest binding energies.

Authors:  Paulius Mikulskis; Daniela Cioloboc; Milica Andrejić; Sakshi Khare; Joakim Brorsson; Samuel Genheden; Ricardo A Mata; Pär Söderhjelm; Ulf Ryde
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 9.  The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate ligand-binding affinities.

Authors:  Samuel Genheden; Ulf Ryde
Journal:  Expert Opin Drug Discov       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 6.098

10.  Binding-affinity predictions of HSP90 in the D3R Grand Challenge 2015 with docking, MM/GBSA, QM/MM, and free-energy simulations.

Authors:  Majda Misini Ignjatović; Octav Caldararu; Geng Dong; Camila Muñoz-Gutierrez; Francisco Adasme-Carreño; Ulf Ryde
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 3.686

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.