Abstract:By using different evaluation strategies, we systemically evaluated the performance of Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area (MM/GBSA) and Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA) methodologies based on more than 1800 protein-ligand crystal structures in the PDBbind database. The results can be summarized as follows: (1) for the one-protein-family/one-binding-ligand case which represents the unbiased protein-ligand complex sampling, both MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA methodologies achieve approximately equal accuracies at the interior dielectric constant of 4 (with r(p) = 0.408 +/- 0.006 of MM/GBSA and r(p) = 0.388 +/- 0.006 of MM/PBSA based on the minimized structures); while for the total dataset (1864 crystal structures), the overall best Pearson correlation coefficient (r(p) = 0.579 +/- 0.002) based on MM/GBSA is better than that of MM/PBSA (r(p) = 0.491 +/- 0.003), indicating that biased sampling may significantly affect the accuracy of the predicted result (some protein families contain too many instances and can bias the overall predicted accuracy). Therefore, family based classification is needed to evaluate the two methodologies; (2) the prediction accuracies of MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA for different protein families are quite different with rp ranging from 0 to 0.9, whereas the correlation and ranking scores (an averaged r(p)/r(s) over a list of protein folds and also representing the unbiased sampling) given by MM/PBSA (r(p)-score = 0.506 +/- 0.050 and r(s)-score = 0.481 +/- 0.052) are comparable to those given by MM/GBSA (r(p)-score = 0.516 +/- 0.047 and r(s)-score = 0.463 +/- 0.047) at the fold family level; (3) for the overall prediction accuracies, molecular dynamics (MD) simulation may not be quite necessary for MM/GBSA (r(p-minimized) = 0.579 +/- 0.002 and r(p-1ns) = 0.564 +/- 0.002), but is needed for MM/PBSA (r(p-minimized) = 0.412 +/- 0.003 and r(p-1ns) = 0.491 +/- 0.003). However, for the individual systems, whether to use MD simulation is depended. (4) both MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA may be unable to give successful predictions for the ligands with high format charges, with the Pearson correlation coefficient ranging from 0.621 +/- 0.003 (neutral ligands) to 0.125 +/- 0.142 (ligands with a formal charge of 5). Therefore, it can be summarized that, although MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA perform similarly in the unbiased dataset, for the currently available crystal structures in the PDBbind database, compared with MM/GBSA, which may be used in multi-target comparisons, MM/PBSA is more sensitive to the investigated systems, and may be more suitable for individual-target-level binding free energy ranking. This study may provide useful guidance for the post-processing of docking based studies.

Ligand affinities predicted with the MM/PBSA method: dependence on the simulation method and the force field

Including Explicit Water Molecules as Part of the Protein Structure in MM/PBSA Calculations.

Assessing the Performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA Methods. 1. The Accuracy of Binding Free Energy Calculations Based on Molecular Dynamics Simulations

Pbsa_e: A Pbsa-Based Free Energy Estimator for Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity

Nonbonded Force Field Parameters from MBIS Partitioning of the Molecular Electron Density Improve Binding Affinity Predictions of the T4-Lysozyme Double Mutant

Non-bonded force field parameters from MBIS partitioning of the molecular electron density improve binding affinity predictions of the T4-lysozyme double mutant

Predictions Of Binding Of A Diverse Set Of Ligands To Gelatinase-A By A Combination Of Molecular Dynamics And Continuum Solvent Models

Estimating the Roles of Protonation and Electronic Polarization in Absolute Binding Affinity Simulations

Improving the Performance of MM/PBSA in Protein-Protein Interactions Via the Screening Electrostatic Energy.

Test Mm-Pb/Sa on True Conformational Ensembles of Protein-Ligand Complexes

Fast and accurate predictions of binding free energies using MM-PBSA and MM-GBSA

A Computational Analysis of the Binding Affinities of FKBP12 Inhibitors Using the MM‐PB/SA Method

Calculation of Absolute Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity Using Path and Endpoint Approaches

Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 4. Accuracies of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methodologies evaluated by various simulation protocols using PDBbind data set.

Comparison of Methodologies for Absolute Binding Free Energy Calculations of Ligands to Intrinsically Disordered Proteins

Effect of Protein-Polarized Ligand Charges on Relative Protein Ligand Binding Affinities

Assessing the Performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA Methods. 3. the Impact of Force Fields and Ligand Charge Models.

Assessing the Performance of Screening MM/PBSA in Protein-Ligand Interactions

MM/PB(GB)SA benchmarks on soluble proteins and membrane proteins

Assessing the Performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA Methods. 7. Entropy Effects on the Performance of End-Point Binding Free Energy Calculation Approaches.

Protein-ligand free energies of binding from full-protein DFT calculations: convergence and choice of exchange-correlation functional