Literature DB >> 27646286

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

Frank C Pickard1, Gerhard König2,3, Florentina Tofoleanu2, Juyong Lee2, Andrew C Simmonett2, Yihan Shao4, Jay W Ponder5, Bernard R Brooks2.   

Abstract

The computation of distribution coefficients between polar and apolar phases requires both an accurate characterization of transfer free energies between phases and proper accounting of ionization and protomerization. We present a protocol for accurately predicting partition coefficients between two immiscible phases, and then apply it to 53 drug-like molecules in the SAMPL5 blind prediction challenge. Our results combine implicit solvent QM calculations with classical MD simulations using the non-Boltzmann Bennett free energy estimator. The OLYP/DZP/SMD method yields predictions that have a small deviation from experiment (RMSD = 2.3 [Formula: see text] D units), relative to other participants in the challenge. Our free energy corrections based on QM protomer and [Formula: see text] calculations increase the correlation between predicted and experimental distribution coefficients, for all methods used. Unfortunately, these corrections are overly hydrophilic, and fail to account for additional effects such as aggregation, water dragging and the presence of polar impurities in the apolar phase. We show that, although expensive, QM-NBB free energy calculations offer an accurate and robust method that is superior to standard MM and QM techniques alone.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Distribution coefficients; Free energy; Implicit solvent; Non-Boltzmann Bennett; Partition coefficients; Protomer; SAMPL5; Tautomer; pKa

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27646286     DOI: 10.1007/s10822-016-9955-7

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


  49 in total

1.  Prediction of SAMPL2 aqueous solvation free energies and tautomeric ratios using the SM8, SM8AD, and SMD solvation models.

Authors:  Raphael F Ribeiro; Aleksandr V Marenich; Christopher J Cramer; Donald G Truhlar
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Self-accumulation of aromatics at the oil-water interface through weak hydrogen bonding.

Authors:  Makoto Kunieda; Kennichi Nakaoka; Yunfeng Liang; Caetano R Miranda; Akira Ueda; Satoru Takahashi; Hiroshi Okabe; Toshifumi Matsuoka
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2010-12-08       Impact factor: 15.419

3.  Binding affinities by alchemical perturbation using QM/MM with a large QM system and polarizable MM model.

Authors:  Samuel Genheden; Ulf Ryde; Pär Söderhjelm
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2015-08-17       Impact factor: 3.376

Review 4.  Enhancing the accuracy, the efficiency and the scope of free energy simulations.

Authors:  Tomas Rodinger; Régis Pomès
Journal:  Curr Opin Struct Biol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 6.809

Review 5.  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

6.  Free energies of binding from large-scale first-principles quantum mechanical calculations: application to ligand hydration energies.

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

7.  Efficiently computing pathway free energies: New approaches based on chain-of-replica and Non-Boltzmann Bennett reweighting schemes.

Authors:  Phillip S Hudson; Justin K White; Fiona L Kearns; Milan Hodoscek; Stefan Boresch; H Lee Woodcock
Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta       Date:  2014-09-17

Review 8.  Blind prediction of solvation free energies from the SAMPL4 challenge.

Authors:  David L Mobley; Karisa L Wymer; Nathan M Lim; J Peter Guthrie
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 3.686

9.  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

10.  CHARMM general force field: A force field for drug-like molecules compatible with the CHARMM all-atom additive biological force fields.

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

View more
  17 in total

1.  pKa measurements for the SAMPL6 prediction challenge for a set of kinase inhibitor-like fragments.

Authors:  Mehtap Işık; Dorothy Levorse; Ariën S Rustenburg; Ikenna E Ndukwe; Heather Wang; Xiao Wang; Mikhail Reibarkh; Gary E Martin; Alexey A Makarov; David L Mobley; Timothy Rhodes; John D Chodera
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Octanol-water partition coefficient measurements for the SAMPL6 blind prediction challenge.

Authors:  Mehtap Işık; Dorothy Levorse; David L Mobley; Timothy Rhodes; John D Chodera
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  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

4.  On the faithfulness of molecular mechanics representations of proteins towards quantum-mechanical energy surfaces.

Authors:  Gerhard König; Sereina Riniker
Journal:  Interface Focus       Date:  2020-10-16       Impact factor: 3.906

5.  Origin of pKa Shifts of Internal Lysine Residues in SNase Studied Via Equal-Molar VMMS Simulations in Explicit Water.

Authors:  Xiongwu Wu; Juyong Lee; Bernard R Brooks
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 2.991

6.  Predicting partition coefficients of drug-like molecules in the SAMPL6 challenge with Drude polarizable force fields.

Authors:  Ye Ding; You Xu; Cheng Qian; Jinfeng Chen; Jian Zhu; Houhou Huang; Yi Shi; Jing Huang
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2020-01-20       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  Standard state free energies, not pKas, are ideal for describing small molecule protonation and tautomeric states.

Authors:  M R Gunner; Taichi Murakami; Ariën S Rustenburg; Mehtap Işık; John D Chodera
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  SAMPL6 challenge results from [Formula: see text] predictions based on a general Gaussian process model.

Authors:  Caitlin C Bannan; David L Mobley; A Geoffrey Skillman
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 3.686

9.  An explicit-solvent hybrid QM and MM approach for predicting pKa of small molecules in SAMPL6 challenge.

Authors:  Samarjeet Prasad; Jing Huang; Qiao Zeng; Bernard R Brooks
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 3.686

10.  Blind prediction of cyclohexane-water distribution coefficients from the SAMPL5 challenge.

Authors:  Caitlin C Bannan; Kalistyn H Burley; Michael Chiu; Michael R Shirts; Michael K Gilson; David L Mobley
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-09-27       Impact factor: 3.686

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.