Literature DB >> 32539374

Accurate Prediction of GPCR Ligand Binding Affinity with Free Energy Perturbation.

Francesca Deflorian1, Laura Perez-Benito2, Eelke B Lenselink3, Miles Congreve1, Herman W T van Vlijmen2, Jonathan S Mason1, Chris de Graaf1, Gary Tresadern2.   

Abstract

The computational prediction of relative binding free energies is a crucial goal for drug discovery, and G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are arguably the most important drug target class. However, they present increased complexity to model compared to soluble globular proteins. Despite breakthroughs, experimental X-ray crystal and cryo-EM structures are challenging to attain, meaning computational models of the receptor and ligand binding mode are sometimes necessary. This leads to uncertainty in understanding ligand-protein binding induced changes such as, water positioning and displacement, side chain positioning, hydrogen bond networks, and the overall structure of the hydration shell around the ligand and protein. In other words, the very elements that define structure activity relationships (SARs) and are crucial for accurate binding free energy calculations are typically more uncertain for GPCRs. In this work we use free energy perturbation (FEP) to predict the relative binding free energies for ligands of two different GPCRs. We pinpoint the key aspects for success such as the important role of key water molecules, amino acid ionization states, and the benefit of equilibration with specific ligands. Initial calculations following typical FEP setup and execution protocols delivered no correlation with experiment, but we show how results are improved in a logical and systematic way. This approach gave, in the best cases, a coefficient of determination (R2) compared with experiment in the range of 0.6-0.9 and mean unsigned errors compared to experiment of 0.6-0.7 kcal/mol. We anticipate that our findings will be applicable to other difficult-to-model protein ligand data sets and be of wide interest for the community to continue improving FE binding energy predictions.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32539374     DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00449

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


  6 in total

1.  Can molecular dynamics simulations improve the structural accuracy and virtual screening performance of GPCR models?

Authors:  Jon Kapla; Ismael Rodríguez-Espigares; Flavio Ballante; Jana Selent; Jens Carlsson
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 4.475

Review 2.  Molecular Simulations and Drug Discovery of Adenosine Receptors.

Authors:  Jinan Wang; Apurba Bhattarai; Hung N Do; Sana Akhter; Yinglong Miao
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 4.411

3.  Ketamine Metabolite (2R,6R)-Hydroxynorketamine Interacts with μ and κ Opioid Receptors.

Authors:  Thomas T Joseph; Weiming Bu; Wenzhen Lin; Lioudmila Zoubak; Alexei Yeliseev; Renyu Liu; Roderic G Eckenhoff; Grace Brannigan
Journal:  ACS Chem Neurosci       Date:  2021-04-27       Impact factor: 4.418

4.  Inhibitor binding influences the protonation states of histidines in SARS-CoV-2 main protease.

Authors:  Anna Pavlova; Diane L Lynch; Isabella Daidone; Laura Zanetti-Polzi; Micholas Dean Smith; Chris Chipot; Daniel W Kneller; Andrey Kovalevsky; Leighton Coates; Andrei A Golosov; Callum J Dickson; Camilo Velez-Vega; José S Duca; Josh V Vermaas; Yui Tik Pang; Atanu Acharya; Jerry M Parks; Jeremy C Smith; James C Gumbart
Journal:  Chem Sci       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 9.825

Review 5.  Protein-Ligand Docking in the Machine-Learning Era.

Authors:  Chao Yang; Eric Anthony Chen; Yingkai Zhang
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2022-07-18       Impact factor: 4.927

6.  Relative binding free energy calculations with transformato: A molecular dynamics engine-independent tool.

Authors:  Johannes Karwounopoulos; Marcus Wieder; Stefan Boresch
Journal:  Front Mol Biosci       Date:  2022-09-06
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.