Daniel J Cole1, Julian Tirado-Rives1, William L Jorgensen2. 1. Department of Chemistry, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8107, USA. 2. Department of Chemistry, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8107, USA. Electronic address: william.jorgensen@yale.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-nucleoside inhibitors of HIV reverse transcriptase are an important component of treatment against HIV infection. Novel inhibitors are sought that increase potency against variants that contain the Tyr181Cys mutation. METHODS: Molecular dynamics based free energy perturbation simulations have been run to study factors that contribute to protein-ligand binding, and the results are compared with those from previous Monte Carlo based simulations and activity data. RESULTS: Predictions of protein-ligand binding modes are very consistent for the two simulation methods; the accord is attributed to the use of an enhanced sampling protocol. The Tyr181Cys binding pocket supports large, hydrophobic substituents, which is in good agreement with experiment. CONCLUSIONS: Although some discrepancies exist between the results of the two simulation methods and experiment, free energy perturbation simulations can be used to rapidly test small molecules for gains in binding affinity. GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE: Free energy perturbation methods show promise in providing fast, reliable and accurate data that can be used to complement experiment in lead optimization projects. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled "Recent developments of molecular dynamics".
BACKGROUND: Non-nucleoside inhibitors of HIV reverse transcriptase are an important component of treatment against HIV infection. Novel inhibitors are sought that increase potency against variants that contain the Tyr181Cys mutation. METHODS: Molecular dynamics based free energy perturbation simulations have been run to study factors that contribute to protein-ligand binding, and the results are compared with those from previous Monte Carlo based simulations and activity data. RESULTS: Predictions of protein-ligand binding modes are very consistent for the two simulation methods; the accord is attributed to the use of an enhanced sampling protocol. The Tyr181Cys binding pocket supports large, hydrophobic substituents, which is in good agreement with experiment. CONCLUSIONS: Although some discrepancies exist between the results of the two simulation methods and experiment, free energy perturbation simulations can be used to rapidly test small molecules for gains in binding affinity. GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE: Free energy perturbation methods show promise in providing fast, reliable and accurate data that can be used to complement experiment in lead optimization projects. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled "Recent developments of molecular dynamics".
Authors: Kalyan Das; Arthur D Clark; Paul J Lewi; Jan Heeres; Marc R De Jonge; Lucien M H Koymans; H Maarten Vinkers; Frederik Daeyaert; Donald W Ludovici; Michael J Kukla; Bart De Corte; Robert W Kavash; Chih Y Ho; Hong Ye; Mark A Lichtenstein; Koen Andries; Rudi Pauwels; Marie-Pierre De Béthune; Paul L Boyer; Patrick Clark; Stephen H Hughes; Paul A J Janssen; Eddy Arnold Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2004-05-06 Impact factor: 7.446
Authors: Jacob G Zeevaart; Ligong Wang; Vinay V Thakur; Cheryl S Leung; Julian Tirado-Rives; Christopher M Bailey; Robert A Domaoal; Karen S Anderson; William L Jorgensen Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2008-06-28 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Matthew Merski; Marcus Fischer; Trent E Balius; Oliv Eidam; Brian K Shoichet Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Ido Y Ben-Shalom; Zhixiong Lin; Brian K Radak; Charles Lin; Woody Sherman; Michael K Gilson Journal: J Chem Theory Comput Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 6.006
Authors: Daniel J Cole; Jonah Z Vilseck; Julian Tirado-Rives; Mike C Payne; William L Jorgensen Journal: J Chem Theory Comput Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 6.006
Authors: Daniel J Cole; Matej Janecek; Jamie E Stokes; Maxim Rossmann; John C Faver; Grahame J McKenzie; Ashok R Venkitaraman; Marko Hyvönen; David R Spring; David J Huggins; William L Jorgensen Journal: Chem Commun (Camb) Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Qinfang Sun; Avik Biswas; R S K Vijayan; Pierrick Craveur; Stefano Forli; Arthur J Olson; Andres Emanuelli Castaner; Karen A Kirby; Stefan G Sarafianos; Nanjie Deng; Ronald Levy Journal: J Comput Aided Mol Des Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 4.179