Literature DB >> 31984465

The SAMPL6 SAMPLing challenge: assessing the reliability and efficiency of binding free energy calculations.

Andrea Rizzi1,2, Travis Jensen3, David R Slochower4, Matteo Aldeghi5, Vytautas Gapsys5, Dimitris Ntekoumes6, Stefano Bosisio7, Michail Papadourakis7, Niel M Henriksen4,8, Bert L de Groot5, Zoe Cournia6, Alex Dickson9,10, Julien Michel7, Michael K Gilson4, Michael R Shirts3, David L Mobley11, John D Chodera12.   

Abstract

Approaches for computing small molecule binding free energies based on molecular simulations are now regularly being employed by academic and industry practitioners to study receptor-ligand systems and prioritize the synthesis of small molecules for ligand design. Given the variety of methods and implementations available, it is natural to ask how the convergence rates and final predictions of these methods compare. In this study, we describe the concept and results for the SAMPL6 SAMPLing challenge, the first challenge from the SAMPL series focusing on the assessment of convergence properties and reproducibility of binding free energy methodologies. We provided parameter files, partial charges, and multiple initial geometries for two octa-acid (OA) and one cucurbit[8]uril (CB8) host-guest systems. Participants submitted binding free energy predictions as a function of the number of force and energy evaluations for seven different alchemical and physical-pathway (i.e., potential of mean force and weighted ensemble of trajectories) methodologies implemented with the GROMACS, AMBER, NAMD, or OpenMM simulation engines. To rank the methods, we developed an efficiency statistic based on bias and variance of the free energy estimates. For the two small OA binders, the free energy estimates computed with alchemical and potential of mean force approaches show relatively similar variance and bias as a function of the number of energy/force evaluations, with the attach-pull-release (APR), GROMACS expanded ensemble, and NAMD double decoupling submissions obtaining the greatest efficiency. The differences between the methods increase when analyzing the CB8-quinine system, where both the guest size and correlation times for system dynamics are greater. For this system, nonequilibrium switching (GROMACS/NS-DS/SB) obtained the overall highest efficiency. Surprisingly, the results suggest that specifying force field parameters and partial charges is insufficient to generally ensure reproducibility, and we observe differences between seemingly converged predictions ranging approximately from 0.3 to 1.0 kcal/mol, even with almost identical simulations parameters and system setup (e.g., Lennard-Jones cutoff, ionic composition). Further work will be required to completely identify the exact source of these discrepancies. Among the conclusions emerging from the data, we found that Hamiltonian replica exchange-while displaying very small variance-can be affected by a slowly-decaying bias that depends on the initial population of the replicas, that bidirectional estimators are significantly more efficient than unidirectional estimators for nonequilibrium free energy calculations for systems considered, and that the Berendsen barostat introduces non-negligible artifacts in expanded ensemble simulations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Binding affinity; Cucurbit[8]uril; Free energy calculations; Host–guest; Octa-acid; SAMPL6; Sampling

Year:  2020        PMID: 31984465      PMCID: PMC7282318          DOI: 10.1007/s10822-020-00290-5

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


  97 in total

1.  Efficient, multiple-range random walk algorithm to calculate the density of states.

Authors:  F Wang; D P Landau
Journal:  Phys Rev Lett       Date:  2001-03-05       Impact factor: 9.161

2.  Evaluation of the grand-canonical partition function using expanded Wang-Landau simulations. I. Thermodynamic properties in the bulk and at the liquid-vapor phase boundary.

Authors:  Caroline Desgranges; Jerome Delhommelle
Journal:  J Chem Phys       Date:  2012-05-14       Impact factor: 3.488

3.  Thermodynamic metrics and optimal paths.

Authors:  David A Sivak; Gavin E Crooks
Journal:  Phys Rev Lett       Date:  2012-05-08       Impact factor: 9.161

4.  Converging free energies of binding in cucurbit[7]uril and octa-acid host-guest systems from SAMPL4 using expanded ensemble simulations.

Authors:  Jacob I Monroe; Michael R Shirts
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2014-03-08       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  Online Optimization of Total Acceptance in Hamiltonian Replica Exchange Simulations.

Authors:  Justin L MacCallum; Mir Ishruna Muniyat; Kari Gaalswyk
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2018-04-04       Impact factor: 2.991

6.  Blinded predictions of standard binding free energies: lessons learned from the SAMPL6 challenge.

Authors:  Michail Papadourakis; Stefano Bosisio; Julien Michel
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  Identifying ligand binding sites and poses using GPU-accelerated Hamiltonian replica exchange molecular dynamics.

Authors:  Kai Wang; John D Chodera; Yanzhi Yang; Michael R Shirts
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  Comparing alchemical and physical pathway methods for computing the absolute binding free energy of charged ligands.

Authors:  Nanjie Deng; Di Cui; Bin W Zhang; Junchao Xia; Jeffrey Cruz; Ronald Levy
Journal:  Phys Chem Chem Phys       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 3.676

9.  Evaluating Force Field Performance in Thermodynamic Calculations of Cyclodextrin Host-Guest Binding: Water Models, Partial Charges, and Host Force Field Parameters.

Authors:  Niel M Henriksen; Michael K Gilson
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 6.006

10.  pmx: Automated protein structure and topology generation for alchemical perturbations.

Authors:  Vytautas Gapsys; Servaas Michielssens; Daniel Seeliger; Bert L de Groot
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2014-12-08       Impact factor: 3.376

View more
  21 in total

1.  Enhanced Jarzynski free energy calculations using weighted ensemble.

Authors:  Nicole M Roussey; Alex Dickson
Journal:  J Chem Phys       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 3.488

2.  Scalable molecular dynamics on CPU and GPU architectures with NAMD.

Authors:  James C Phillips; David J Hardy; Julio D C Maia; John E Stone; João V Ribeiro; Rafael C Bernardi; Ronak Buch; Giacomo Fiorin; Jérôme Hénin; Wei Jiang; Ryan McGreevy; Marcelo C R Melo; Brian K Radak; Robert D Skeel; Abhishek Singharoy; Yi Wang; Benoît Roux; Aleksei Aksimentiev; Zaida Luthey-Schulten; Laxmikant V Kalé; Klaus Schulten; Christophe Chipot; Emad Tajkhorshid
Journal:  J Chem Phys       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 3.488

3.  Expanded Ensemble Methods Can be Used to Accurately Predict Protein-Ligand Relative Binding Free Energies.

Authors:  Si Zhang; David F Hahn; Michael R Shirts; Vincent A Voelz
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 6.578

4.  An overview of the SAMPL8 host-guest binding challenge.

Authors:  Martin Amezcua; Jeffry Setiadi; Yunhui Ge; David L Mobley
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2022-10-14       Impact factor: 4.179

5.  DeepBAR: A Fast and Exact Method for Binding Free Energy Computation.

Authors:  Xinqiang Ding; Bin Zhang
Journal:  J Phys Chem Lett       Date:  2021-03-15       Impact factor: 6.475

6.  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

7.  Variational Method for Networkwide Analysis of Relative Ligand Binding Free Energies with Loop Closure and Experimental Constraints.

Authors:  Timothy J Giese; Darrin M York
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2021-02-02       Impact factor: 6.006

8.  A Benchmark of Electrostatic Method Performance in Relative Binding Free Energy Calculations.

Authors:  Yunhui Ge; David F Hahn; David L Mobley
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 4.956

9.  SAMPL7 Host-Guest Challenge Overview: assessing the reliability of polarizable and non-polarizable methods for binding free energy calculations.

Authors:  Martin Amezcua; Léa El Khoury; David L Mobley
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 3.686

10.  Evaluation of log P, pKa, and log D predictions from the SAMPL7 blind challenge.

Authors:  Teresa Danielle Bergazin; Nicolas Tielker; Yingying Zhang; Junjun Mao; M R Gunner; Karol Francisco; Carlo Ballatore; Stefan M Kast; David L Mobley
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 3.686

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.