Literature DB >> 26928941

Comparison of Methods To Reweight from Classical Molecular Simulations to QM/MM Potentials.

Eric C Dybeck1, Gerhard König2, Bernard R Brooks2, Michael R Shirts1,3.   

Abstract

We examine methods to reweight classical molecular mechanics solvation calculations to more expensive QM/MM energy functions. We first consider the solvation free energy difference between ethane and methanol in a QM/MM Hamiltonian from configurations generated in a cheaper MM potential. The solute molecules in the QM/MM Hamiltonian are treated with B3LYP/6-31G*, and the solvent water molecules are treated classically. The free energy difference in the QM/MM Hamiltonian is estimated using Boltzmann reweighting with both the non-Boltzmann Bennett method (NBB) and the multistate Bennett acceptance ratio (MBAR), and the variance of each method is directly compared for an identical data set. For this system, MBAR-derived methods are found to produce smaller overall uncertainties than NBB-based methods. Additionally, we show that to reduce the variance in the overall free energy difference estimate in this system for a fixed amount of QM/MM calculations, the energy re-evaluations in the Boltzmann reweighting step should be concentrated on the physical MM states with the highest overlap to the QM/MM states, rather than allocated equally over all sampled MM states. We also show that reallocating the QM/MM re-evaluations can be used to diagnose poor overlap between the sampled and target state. The solvation free energies for molecules in the SAMPL4 solvation data set are also calculated in the QM/MM Hamiltonian with NBB and MBAR, and the variances are marginally smaller for MBAR. Overall, NBB and MBAR produce similar variances for systems with poor sampling efficiency, and MBAR provides smaller variances than NBB in systems with high sampling efficiency. Both NBB and MBAR converge to identical solvation free energy estimates in the QM/MM Hamiltonian, and the RMSD to experimental values for molecules in the SAMPL4 solvation data set decreases by approximately 28% when switching from the MM Hamiltonian to the QM/MM Hamiltonian.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26928941      PMCID: PMC6497519          DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b01188

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput        ISSN: 1549-9618            Impact factor:   6.006


  50 in total

1.  Frozen density functional free energy simulations of redox proteins: computational studies of the reduction potential of plastocyanin and rusticyanin.

Authors:  Mats H M Olsson; Gongyi Hong; Arieh Warshel
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2003-04-30       Impact factor: 15.419

Review 2.  Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules.

Authors:  Martin Karplus; J Andrew McCammon
Journal:  Nat Struct Biol       Date:  2002-09

3.  Crystal structure prediction of small organic molecules: a second blind test.

Authors:  W D Sam Motherwell; Herman L Ammon; Jack D Dunitz; Alexander Dzyabchenko; Peter Erk; Angelo Gavezzotti; Detlef W M Hofmann; Frank J J Leusen; Jos P M Lommerse; Wijnand T M Mooij; Sarah L Price; Harold Scheraga; Bernd Schweizer; Martin U Schmidt; Bouke P van Eijck; Paul Verwer; Donald E Williams
Journal:  Acta Crystallogr B       Date:  2002-07-30

4.  A priori evaluation of aqueous polarization effects through Monte Carlo QM-MM simulations.

Authors:  J Gao; X Xia
Journal:  Science       Date:  1992-10-23       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 5.  The many roles of computation in drug discovery.

Authors:  William L Jorgensen
Journal:  Science       Date:  2004-03-19       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 6.  Theory of protein folding.

Authors:  José Nelson Onuchic; Peter G Wolynes
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 6.809

7.  Molecular dynamics and protein function.

Authors:  M Karplus; J Kuriyan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-05-03       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  A third blind test of crystal structure prediction.

Authors:  G M Day; W D S Motherwell; H L Ammon; S X M Boerrigter; R G Della Valle; E Venuti; A Dzyabchenko; J D Dunitz; B Schweizer; B P van Eijck; P Erk; J C Facelli; V E Bazterra; M B Ferraro; D W M Hofmann; F J J Leusen; C Liang; C C Pantelides; P G Karamertzanis; S L Price; T C Lewis; H Nowell; A Torrisi; H A Scheraga; Y A Arnautova; M U Schmidt; P Verwer
Journal:  Acta Crystallogr B       Date:  2005-09-23

Review 9.  Biomolecular modeling: Goals, problems, perspectives.

Authors:  Wilfred F van Gunsteren; Dirk Bakowies; Riccardo Baron; Indira Chandrasekhar; Markus Christen; Xavier Daura; Peter Gee; Daan P Geerke; Alice Glättli; Philippe H Hünenberger; Mika A Kastenholz; Chris Oostenbrink; Merijn Schenk; Daniel Trzesniak; Nico F A van der Vegt; Haibo B Yu
Journal:  Angew Chem Int Ed Engl       Date:  2006-06-19       Impact factor: 15.336

10.  Towards accurate ab initio QM/MM calculations of free-energy profiles of enzymatic reactions.

Authors:  Edina Rosta; Marco Klähn; Arieh Warshel
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2006-02-16       Impact factor: 2.991

View more
  10 in total

1.  Accelerated Computation of Free Energy Profile at Ab Initio Quantum Mechanical/Molecular Mechanics Accuracy via a Semiempirical Reference Potential. 4. Adaptive QM/MM.

Authors:  Jia-Ning Wang; Wei Liu; Pengfei Li; Yan Mo; Wenxin Hu; Jun Zheng; Xiaoliang Pan; Yihan Shao; Ye Mei
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 6.006

2.  Calculating distribution coefficients based on multi-scale free energy simulations: an evaluation of MM and QM/MM explicit solvent simulations of water-cyclohexane transfer in the SAMPL5 challenge.

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

3.  Blind prediction of distribution in the SAMPL5 challenge with QM based protomer and pK a corrections.

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

4.  Alchemical Binding Free Energy Calculations in AMBER20: Advances and Best Practices for Drug Discovery.

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

5.  Affordable Ab Initio Path Integral for Thermodynamic Properties via Molecular Dynamics Simulations Using Semiempirical Reference Potential.

Authors:  Yuanfei Xue; Jia-Ning Wang; Wenxin Hu; Jun Zheng; Yongle Li; Xiaoliang Pan; Yan Mo; Yihan Shao; Lu Wang; Ye Mei
Journal:  J Phys Chem A       Date:  2021-12-12       Impact factor: 2.944

6.  An efficient protocol for obtaining accurate hydration free energies using quantum chemistry and reweighting from molecular dynamics simulations.

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

7.  Toward polarizable AMOEBA thermodynamics at fixed charge efficiency using a dual force field approach: application to organic crystals.

Authors:  Ian J Nessler; Jacob M Litman; Michael J Schnieders
Journal:  Phys Chem Chem Phys       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 3.676

8.  Development of a Robust Indirect Approach for MM → QM Free Energy Calculations That Combines Force-Matched Reference Potential and Bennett's Acceptance Ratio Methods.

Authors:  Timothy J Giese; Darrin M York
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2019-09-17       Impact factor: 6.006

9.  Use of Interaction Energies in QM/MM Free Energy Simulations.

Authors:  Phillip S Hudson; H Lee Woodcock; Stefan Boresch
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 6.006

10.  A Comparison of QM/MM Simulations with and without the Drude Oscillator Model Based on Hydration Free Energies of Simple Solutes.

Authors:  Gerhard König; Frank C Pickard; Jing Huang; Walter Thiel; Alexander D MacKerell; Bernard R Brooks; Darrin M York
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2018-10-19       Impact factor: 4.411

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.