Literature DB >> 30640456

Assessing the Predictive Power of Relative Binding Free Energy Calculations for Test Cases Involving Displacement of Binding Site Water Molecules.

Joel Wahl1, Martin Smieško1.   

Abstract

Improved sampling methodologies, more accurate force fields, and access to longer simulation time scales have led to an increased application of Relative Binding Free Energy (RBFE) calculations in drug discovery projects. In order to assess the strengths and limitations of such tools, adequate benchmark sets are required that challenge the methodology in certain well-defined aspects. We applied Free Energy Perturbation (FEP) calculations to six congeneric ligand pairs taken from the literature, in which addition of a functional group resulted in the displacement of buried binding site water molecules and compared the calculated relative binding free energies with the experimental ones. We started the perturbations from different initial solvation states and registered large inconsistencies (large hysteresis) between the calculated values. We furthermore applied a Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) solvent sampling step prior to the FEP calculation that led to a smaller hysteresis for the simulations. By applying a hydration site analysis to the trajectories of the end-states of the perturbation, we could point out that the low accuracy of the predictions as well as the high dependence of the prediction on the chosen initial state is likely caused by the trapping of binding site water molecules and/or insufficient solvation of buried cavities that are formed upon completion of the perturbation. This work highlights that RBFE calculations can suffer from slow solvent exchange of buried parts of the binding sites with the bulk.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 30640456     DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00826

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Inf Model        ISSN: 1549-9596            Impact factor:   4.956


  8 in total

1.  Utilizing Grand Canonical Monte Carlo Methods in Drug Discovery.

Authors:  Michael S Bodnarchuk; Martin J Packer; Alexe Haywood
Journal:  ACS Med Chem Lett       Date:  2019-12-11       Impact factor: 4.345

2.  Computational Tools for Accurate Binding Free-Energy Prediction.

Authors:  Maria M Reif; Martin Zacharias
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

3.  Comparison of Grand Canonical and Conventional Molecular Dynamics Simulation Methods for Protein-Bound Water Networks.

Authors:  Vilhelm Ekberg; Marley L Samways; Majda Misini Ignjatović; Jonathan W Essex; Ulf Ryde
Journal:  ACS Phys Chem Au       Date:  2022-02-11

4.  Enhancing Sampling of Water Rehydration on Ligand Binding: A Comparison of Techniques.

Authors:  Yunhui Ge; David C Wych; Marley L Samways; Michael E Wall; Jonathan W Essex; David L Mobley
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2022-02-11       Impact factor: 6.578

5.  Accounting for the Central Role of Interfacial Water in Protein-Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculations.

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

6.  Thermodynamic Integration in 3n Dimensions without Biases or Alchemy for Protein Interactions.

Authors:  Liao Y Chen
Journal:  Front Phys       Date:  2020-06-09

7.  Challenges Encountered Applying Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Binding Free Energy Calculations.

Authors:  Hannah M Baumann; Vytautas Gapsys; Bert L de Groot; David L Mobley
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2021-04-27       Impact factor: 2.991

Review 8.  Water in protein hydration and ligand recognition.

Authors:  Manuela Maurer; Chris Oostenbrink
Journal:  J Mol Recognit       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 2.891

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.