A Large-Scale Test of Free-Energy Simulation Estimates of Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities.

We have performed a large-scale test of alchemical perturbation calculations with the Bennett acceptance-ratio (BAR) approach to estimate relative affinities for the binding of 107 ligands to 10 different proteins. Employing 20-Å truncated spherical systems and only one intermediate state in the perturbations, we obtain an error of less than 4 kJ/mol for 54% of the studied relative affinities and a precision of 0.5 kJ/mol on average. However, only four of the proteins gave acceptable errors, correlations, and rankings. The results could be improved by using nine intermediate states in the simulations or including the entire protein in the simulations using periodic boundary conditions. However, 27 of the calculated affinities still gave errors of more than 4 kJ/mol, and for three of the proteins the results were not satisfactory. This shows that the performance of BAR calculations depends on the target protein and that several transformations gave poor results owing to limitations in the molecular-mechanics force field or the restricted sampling possible within a reasonable simulation time. Still, the BAR results are better than docking calculations for most of the proteins

Absolute FKBP binding affinities obtained via non-equilibrium unbinding simulations

We compute absolute binding affinities for two ligands bound to the FKBP protein using non-equilibrium unbinding simulations. The methodology is straight-forward, requiring little or no modification to many modern molecular simulation packages. The approach makes use of a physical pathway, eliminating the need for complicated alchemical decoupling schemes. Results of this study are promising. For the ligands studied here the binding affinities are typically estimated within less than 4.0 kJ/mol of the target values; and the target values are within less than 1.0 kJ/mol of experiment. These results suggest that non-equilibrium simulation could provide a simple and robust means to estimate protein-ligand binding affinities.Comment: 9 pages, 3 figures (no necessary color). Changes made to methodology and results between revision

Computational structure‐based drug design: Predicting target flexibility

The role of molecular modeling in drug design has experienced a significant revamp in the last decade. The increase in computational resources and molecular models, along with software developments, is finally introducing a competitive advantage in early phases of drug discovery. Medium and small companies with strong focus on computational chemistry are being created, some of them having introduced important leads in drug design pipelines. An important source for this success is the extraordinary development of faster and more efficient techniques for describing flexibility in three‐dimensional structural molecular modeling. At different levels, from docking techniques to atomistic molecular dynamics, conformational sampling between receptor and drug results in improved predictions, such as screening enrichment, discovery of transient cavities, etc. In this review article we perform an extensive analysis of these modeling techniques, dividing them into high and low throughput, and emphasizing in their application to drug design studies. We finalize the review with a section describing our Monte Carlo method, PELE, recently highlighted as an outstanding advance in an international blind competition and industrial benchmarks.We acknowledge the BSC-CRG-IRB Joint Research Program in Computational Biology. This work was supported by a grant from the Spanish Government CTQ2016-79138-R.J.I. acknowledges support from SVP-2014-068797, awarded by the Spanish Government.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Comparison of end-point continuum-solvation methods for the calculation of protein-ligand binding free energies.

We have compared the predictions of ligand-binding affinities from several methods based on end-point molecular dynamics simulations and continuum solvation, i.e. methods related to MM/PBSA (molecular mechanics combined with Poisson-Boltzmann and surface area solvation). Two continuum-solvation models were considered, viz. the Poisson-Boltzmann (PB) and generalised Born (GB) approaches. The non-electrostatic energies were also obtained in two different ways, viz. either from the sum of the bonded, van der Waals, non-polar solvation energies, and entropy terms (as in MM/PBSA), or from the scaled protein-ligand van der Waals interaction energy (as in the linear interaction energy approach, LIE). Three different approaches to calculate electrostatic energies were tested, viz. the sum of electrostatic interaction energies and polar solvation energies, obtained either from a single simulation of the complex or from three independent simulations of the complex, the free protein, and the free ligand, or the linear-response approximation (LRA). Moreover, we investigated the effect of scaling the electrostatic interactions by an effective internal dielectric constant of the protein (ε(int) ). All these methods were tested on the binding of seven biotin analogues to avidin and nine 3-amidinobenzyl-1H-indole-2-carboxamide inhibitors to factor Xa. For avidin, the best results were obtained with a combination of the LIE non-electrostatic energies with the MM+GB electrostatic energies from a single simulation, using ε(int) = 4. For fXa, standard MM/GBSA, based on one simulation and using ε(int) = 4-10 gave the best result. The optimum internal dielectric constant seems to be slightly higher with PB than with GB solvation. Proteins 2012. © 2012 Wiley-Liss, Inc

Comparison of the Efficiency of the LIE and MM/GBSA Methods to Calculate Ligand-Binding Energies

We have evaluated the efficiency of two popular end-point methods to calculate ligand-binding free energies, LIE (linear interaction energy) and MM/GBSA (molecular mechanics with generalized Born surface-area solvation), i.e. the computational effort needed to obtain estimates of a similar precision. As a test case, we use the binding of seven biotin analogues to avidin. The energy terms used by MM/GBSA and LIE exhibit a similar correlation time (similar to 5 ps), and the equilibration time seems also to be similar, although it varies much between the various ligands. The results show that the LIE method is more effective than MM/GBSA, by a factor of 2-7 for a truncated spherical system with a radius of 26 angstrom and by a factor of 1.0-2.4 for the full avidin tetramer (radius 47 angstrom). The reason for this is the cost for the MM/GBSA entropy calculations, which more than compensates for the extra simulation of the free ligand in LIE. On the other hand, LIE requires that the protein is neutralized, whereas MM/GBSA has no such requirements. Our results indicate that both the truncation and neutralization of the proteins may slow the convergence and emphasize small differences in the calculations, e.g., differences between the four subunits in avidin. Moreover, LIE cannot take advantage of the fact that avidin is a tetramer. For this test case, LIE gives poor results with the standard parametrization, but after optimizing the scaling factor of the van der Waals terms, reasonable binding affinities can be obtained, although MM/GBSA still gives a significantly better predictive index and correlation to the experimental affinities

Quantitative surface field analysis: learning causal models to predict ligand binding affinity and pose.

We introduce the QuanSA method for inducing physically meaningful field-based models of ligand binding pockets based on structure-activity data alone. The method is closely related to the QMOD approach, substituting a learned scoring field for a pocket constructed of molecular fragments. The problem of mutual ligand alignment is addressed in a general way, and optimal model parameters and ligand poses are identified through multiple-instance machine learning. We provide algorithmic details along with performance results on sixteen structure-activity data sets covering many pharmaceutically relevant targets. In particular, we show how models initially induced from small data sets can extrapolatively identify potent new ligands with novel underlying scaffolds with very high specificity. Further, we show that combining predictions from QuanSA models with those from physics-based simulation approaches is synergistic. QuanSA predictions yield binding affinities, explicit estimates of ligand strain, associated ligand pose families, and estimates of structural novelty and confidence. The method is applicable for fine-grained lead optimization as well as potent new lead identification

The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate ligand-binding affinities

Introduction: The molecular mechanics energies combined with the Poisson-Boltzmann or generalized Born and surface area continuum solvation (MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA) methods are popular approaches to estimate the free energy of the binding of small ligands to biological macromolecules. They are typically based on molecular dynamics simulations of the receptor-ligand complex and are therefore intermediate in both accuracy and computational effort between empirical scoring and strict alchemical perturbation methods. They have been applied to a large number of systems with varying success. Areas covered: The authors review the use of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to calculate ligand-binding affinities, with an emphasis on calibration, testing and validation, as well as attempts to improve the methods, rather than on specific applications. Expert opinion: MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA are attractive approaches owing to their modular nature and that they do not require calculations on a training set. They have been used successfully to reproduce and rationalize experimental findings and to improve the results of virtual screening and docking. However, they contain several crude and questionable approximations, for example, the lack of conformational entropy and information about the number and free energy of water molecules in the binding site. Moreover, there are many variants of the method and their performance varies strongly with the tested system. Likewise, most attempts to ameliorate the methods with more accurate approaches, for example, quantum-mechanical calculations, polarizable force fields or improved solvation have deteriorated the results

Can System Truncation Speed up Ligand-Binding Calculations with Periodic Free-Energy Simulations?

We have investigated whether alchemical free-energy perturbation calculations of relative binding energies can be sped up by simulating a truncated protein. Previous studies with spherical nonperiodic systems showed that the number of simulated atoms could be reduced by a factor of 26 without affecting the calculated binding free energies by more than 0.5 kJ/mol on average (Genheden, S.; Ryde, U. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8, 1449), leading to a 63-fold decrease in the time consumption. However, such simulations are rather slow, owing to the need of a large cutoff radius for the nonbonded interactions. Periodic simulations with the electrostatics treated by Ewald summation are much faster. Therefore, we have investigated if a similar speed-up can be obtained also for periodic simulations. Unfortunately, our results show that it is harder to truncate periodic systems and that the truncation errors are larger for these systems. In particular, residues need to be removed from the calculations, which means that atoms have to be restrained to avoid that they move in an unrealistic manner. The results strongly depend on the strength on this restraint. For the binding of seven ligands to dihydrofolate reductase and ten inhibitors of blood-clotting factor Xa, the best results are obtained with a small restraining force constant. However, the truncation errors were still significant (e.g., 1.5-2.9 kJ/mol at a truncation radius of 10 Å). Moreover, the gain in computer time was only modest. On the other hand, if the snapshots are truncated after the MD simulations, the truncation errors are small (below 0.9 kJ/mol even for a truncation radius of 10 Å). This indicates that postprocessing with a more accurate energy function (e.g., with quantum chemistry) on truncated snapshots may be a viable approach

The Normal-Mode Entropy in the MM/GBSA Method: Effect of System Truncation, Buffer Region, and Dielectric Constant

We have performed a systematic study of the entropy term in the MM/GBSA (molecular Mechanics combined with generalized Born and surface area solvation) approach to calculate ligand-binding affinities The entropies are calculated by a normal mode analysis of harmonic frequencies from minimized snapshots of molecular dynamics simulations. For computational reasons, these calculations have normally been performed on truncated systems. We have studied the binding of eight inhibitors of blood clotting factor Xa, nine ligands of ferritin, and two ligands of HIV-1 protease and show that removing protein residues with. distances. larger than 8-16 angstrom to the ligand, including a 4 angstrom shell of fixed protein residues and water molecules, change the absolute entropies by 1-5 kJ/mol on average. However, the change is systematic, so relative entropies for different ligands change by only 0.7-1.6 kJ/mol on average. Consequently, entropies from truncated systems give relative binding affinities that are identical to those obtained for the Whole protein within statistical uncertainty (172 kJ/mol). We have also tested to use a distance dependent dielectric constant in the minimization and. frequency calculation (epsilon = 4r), but it typically gives slightly different entropies and poorer binding, affinities. Therefore, we recommend entropies calculated with the smallest truncation radius (8 angstrom) and epsilon =1 Such an approach also gives an improved precision for the calculated binding free energies

New insights on repellent recognition by <i>Anopheles gambiae</i> odorant-binding protein 1

It is generally recognized that insect odorant binding proteins (OBPs) mediate the solubilisation and transport of hydrophobic odorant molecules and contribute to the sensitivity of the insect olfactory system. However, the exact mechanism by which OBPs deliver odorants to olfactory receptors and their role, if any, as selectivity filters for specific odorants, are still a matter of debate. In the case of Anopheles gambiae recent studies indicate that ligand discrimination is effected through the formation of heterodimers such as AgamOBP1 and AgamOBP4 (odorant binding proteins 1 and 4 from Anopheles gambiae). Furthermore, AgamOBPs have been reported to be promiscuous in binding more than one ligand simultaneously and repellents such as DEET (N,N-diethyl-3-toluamide) and 6-MH (6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one) interact directly with mosquito OBPs and/or compete for the binding of attractive odorants thus disrupting OBP heterodimerisation. In this paper, we propose mechanisms of action of DEET and 6-MH. We also predict that ligand binding can occur in several locations of AgamOBP1 with partial occupancies and propose structural features appropriate for repellent pharmacophores