Literature DB >> 27677750

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

Caitlin C Bannan1, Kalistyn H Burley2, Michael Chiu3, Michael R Shirts4, Michael K Gilson5, David L Mobley6,7.   

Abstract

In the recent SAMPL5 challenge, participants submitted predictions for cyclohexane/water distribution coefficients for a set of 53 small molecules. Distribution coefficients (log D) replace the hydration free energies that were a central part of the past five SAMPL challenges. A wide variety of computational methods were represented by the 76 submissions from 18 participating groups. Here, we analyze submissions by a variety of error metrics and provide details for a number of reference calculations we performed. As in the SAMPL4 challenge, we assessed the ability of participants to evaluate not just their statistical uncertainty, but their model uncertainty-how well they can predict the magnitude of their model or force field error for specific predictions. Unfortunately, this remains an area where prediction and analysis need improvement. In SAMPL4 the top performing submissions achieved a root-mean-squared error (RMSE) around 1.5 kcal/mol. If we anticipate accuracy in log D predictions to be similar to the hydration free energy predictions in SAMPL4, the expected error here would be around 1.54 log units. Only a few submissions had an RMSE below 2.5 log units in their predicted log D values. However, distribution coefficients introduced complexities not present in past SAMPL challenges, including tautomer enumeration, that are likely to be important in predicting biomolecular properties of interest to drug discovery, therefore some decrease in accuracy would be expected. Overall, the SAMPL5 distribution coefficient challenge provided great insight into the importance of modeling a variety of physical effects. We believe these types of measurements will be a promising source of data for future blind challenges, especially in view of the relatively straightforward nature of the experiments and the level of insight provided.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alchemical; Blind challenge; Distribution coefficient; Free energy; Molecular simulation; SAMPL

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27677750      PMCID: PMC5209301          DOI: 10.1007/s10822-016-9954-8

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.  Development and testing of a general amber force field.

Authors:  Junmei Wang; Romain M Wolf; James W Caldwell; Peter A Kollman; David A Case
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2004-07-15       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.  GROMACS 4.5: a high-throughput and highly parallel open source molecular simulation toolkit.

Authors:  Sander Pronk; Szilárd Páll; Roland Schulz; Per Larsson; Pär Bjelkmar; Rossen Apostolov; Michael R Shirts; Jeremy C Smith; Peter M Kasson; David van der Spoel; Berk Hess; Erik Lindahl
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 6.937

5.  Box size effects are negligible for solvation free energies of neutral solutes.

Authors:  Sreeja Parameswaran; David L Mobley
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Extended solvent-contact model approach to blind SAMPL5 prediction challenge for the distribution coefficients of drug-like molecules.

Authors:  Kee-Choo Chung; Hwangseo Park
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-07-23       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  Predicting cyclohexane/water distribution coefficients for the SAMPL5 challenge using MOSCED and the SMD solvation model.

Authors:  Sebastian Diaz-Rodriguez; Samantha M Bozada; Jeremy R Phifer; Andrew S Paluch
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  Calculation of distribution coefficients in the SAMPL5 challenge from atomic solvation parameters and surface areas.

Authors:  Diogo Santos-Martins; Pedro Alexandrino Fernandes; Maria João Ramos
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 9.  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

10.  Prediction of partition coefficients by multiscale hybrid atomic-level/coarse-grain simulations.

Authors:  Julien Michel; Mario Orsi; Jonathan W Essex
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2007-12-29       Impact factor: 2.991

View more
  51 in total

1.  Toward Learned Chemical Perception of Force Field Typing Rules.

Authors:  Camila Zanette; Caitlin C Bannan; Christopher I Bayly; Josh Fass; Michael K Gilson; Michael R Shirts; John D Chodera; David L Mobley
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2018-12-24       Impact factor: 6.006

2.  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

3.  The influence of hydrogen bonding on partition coefficients.

Authors:  Nádia Melo Borges; Peter W Kenny; Carlos A Montanari; Igor M Prokopczyk; Jean F R Ribeiro; Josmar R Rocha; Geraldo Rodrigues Sartori
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2017-01-04       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  Prediction of partition and distribution coefficients in various solvent pairs with COSMO-RS.

Authors:  Sofja Tshepelevitsh; Kertu Hernits; Ivo Leito
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  The SAMPL6 challenge on predicting aqueous pKa values from EC-RISM theory.

Authors:  Nicolas Tielker; Lukas Eberlein; Stefan Güssregen; Stefan M Kast
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  High accuracy quantum-chemistry-based calculation and blind prediction of macroscopic pKa values in the context of the SAMPL6 challenge.

Authors:  Philipp Pracht; Rainer Wilcken; Anikó Udvarhelyi; Stephane Rodde; Stefan Grimme
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-08-23       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  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

8.  The SAMPL5 challenge for embedded-cluster integral equation theory: solvation free energies, aqueous pK a, and cyclohexane-water log D.

Authors:  Nicolas Tielker; Daniel Tomazic; Jochen Heil; Thomas Kloss; Sebastian Ehrhart; Stefan Güssregen; K Friedemann Schmidt; Stefan M Kast
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.686

9.  Predicting cyclohexane/water distribution coefficients for the SAMPL5 challenge using MOSCED and the SMD solvation model.

Authors:  Sebastian Diaz-Rodriguez; Samantha M Bozada; Jeremy R Phifer; Andrew S Paluch
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 3.686

10.  Escaping Atom Types in Force Fields Using Direct Chemical Perception.

Authors:  David L Mobley; Caitlin C Bannan; Andrea Rizzi; Christopher I Bayly; John D Chodera; Victoria T Lim; Nathan M Lim; Kyle A Beauchamp; David R Slochower; Michael R Shirts; Michael K Gilson; Peter K Eastman
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2018-10-30       Impact factor: 6.006

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.