Gerhard König1, Bernard R Brooks2. 1. Laboratory of Computational Biology, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, United States. Electronic address: gerhard.koenig@nih.gov. 2. Laboratory of Computational Biology, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Free energy simulations are an important tool in the arsenal of computational biophysics, allowing the calculation of thermodynamic properties of binding or enzymatic reactions. This paper introduces methods to increase the accuracy and precision of free energy calculations by calculating the free energy costs of constraints during post-processing. The primary purpose of employing constraints for these free energy methods is to increase the phase space overlap between ensembles, which is required for accuracy and convergence. METHODS: The free energy costs of applying or removing constraints are calculated as additional explicit steps in the free energy cycle. The new techniques focus on hard degrees of freedom and use both gradients and Hessian estimation. Enthalpy, vibrational entropy, and Jacobian free energy terms are considered. RESULTS: We demonstrate the utility of this method with simple classical systems involving harmonic and anharmonic oscillators, four-atomic benchmark systems, an alchemical mutation of ethane to methanol, and free energy simulations between alanine and serine. The errors for the analytical test cases are all below 0.0007kcal/mol, and the accuracy of the free energy results of ethane to methanol is improved from 0.15 to 0.04kcal/mol. For the alanine to serine case, the phase space overlaps of the unconstrained simulations range between 0.15 and 0.9%. The introduction of constraints increases the overlap up to 2.05%. On average, the overlap increases by 94% relative to the unconstrained value and precision is doubled. CONCLUSIONS: The approach reduces errors arising from constraints by about an order of magnitude. Free energy simulations benefit from the use of constraints through enhanced convergence and higher precision. GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE: The primary utility of this approach is to calculate free energies for systems with disparate energy surfaces and bonded terms, especially in multi-scale molecular mechanics/quantum mechanics simulations. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Recent developments of molecular dynamics. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: Free energy simulations are an important tool in the arsenal of computational biophysics, allowing the calculation of thermodynamic properties of binding or enzymatic reactions. This paper introduces methods to increase the accuracy and precision of free energy calculations by calculating the free energy costs of constraints during post-processing. The primary purpose of employing constraints for these free energy methods is to increase the phase space overlap between ensembles, which is required for accuracy and convergence. METHODS: The free energy costs of applying or removing constraints are calculated as additional explicit steps in the free energy cycle. The new techniques focus on hard degrees of freedom and use both gradients and Hessian estimation. Enthalpy, vibrational entropy, and Jacobian free energy terms are considered. RESULTS: We demonstrate the utility of this method with simple classical systems involving harmonic and anharmonic oscillators, four-atomic benchmark systems, an alchemical mutation of ethane to methanol, and free energy simulations between alanine and serine. The errors for the analytical test cases are all below 0.0007kcal/mol, and the accuracy of the free energy results of ethane to methanol is improved from 0.15 to 0.04kcal/mol. For the alanine to serine case, the phase space overlaps of the unconstrained simulations range between 0.15 and 0.9%. The introduction of constraints increases the overlap up to 2.05%. On average, the overlap increases by 94% relative to the unconstrained value and precision is doubled. CONCLUSIONS: The approach reduces errors arising from constraints by about an order of magnitude. Free energy simulations benefit from the use of constraints through enhanced convergence and higher precision. GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE: The primary utility of this approach is to calculate free energies for systems with disparate energy surfaces and bonded terms, especially in multi-scale molecular mechanics/quantum mechanics simulations. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Recent developments of molecular dynamics. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bennett's acceptance ratio; Constraint correction; Free energy calculation; Molecular dynamics simulation; Normal mode analysis
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
Authors: Stephen J Fox; Chris Pittock; Christofer S Tautermann; Thomas Fox; Clara Christ; N O J Malcolm; Jonathan W Essex; Chris-Kriton Skylaris Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2013-08-05 Impact factor: 2.991
Authors: An Ghysels; H Lee Woodcock; Joseph D Larkin; Benjamin T Miller; Yihan Shao; Jing Kong; Dimitri Van Neck; Veronique Van Speybroeck; Michel Waroquier; Bernard R Brooks Journal: J Chem Theory Comput Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 6.006
Authors: K Vanommeslaeghe; E Hatcher; C Acharya; S Kundu; S Zhong; J Shim; E Darian; O Guvench; P Lopes; I Vorobyov; A D Mackerell Journal: J Comput Chem Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.376
Authors: A Ghysels; V Van Speybroeck; E Pauwels; D Van Neck; B R Brooks; M Waroquier Journal: J Chem Theory Comput Date: 2009-05-12 Impact factor: 6.006
Authors: Gerhard König; Frank C Pickard; Jing Huang; Andrew C Simmonett; Florentina Tofoleanu; Juyong Lee; Pavlo O Dral; Samarjeet Prasad; Michael Jones; Yihan Shao; Walter Thiel; Bernard R Brooks Journal: J Comput Aided Mol Des Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 3.686
Authors: Frank C Pickard; Gerhard König; Florentina Tofoleanu; Juyong Lee; Andrew C Simmonett; Yihan Shao; Jay W Ponder; Bernard R Brooks Journal: J Comput Aided Mol Des Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 3.686
Authors: Tai-Sung Lee; Bryce K Allen; Timothy J Giese; Zhenyu Guo; Pengfei Li; Charles Lin; T Dwight McGee; David A Pearlman; Brian K Radak; Yujun Tao; Hsu-Chun Tsai; Huafeng Xu; Woody Sherman; Darrin M York Journal: J Chem Inf Model Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 4.956
Authors: Frank C Pickard; Gerhard König; Andrew C Simmonett; Yihan Shao; Bernard R Brooks Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Gerhard König; Ye Mei; Frank C Pickard; Andrew C Simmonett; Benjamin T Miller; John M Herbert; H Lee Woodcock; Bernard R Brooks; Yihan Shao Journal: J Chem Theory Comput Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 6.006