Evidence for the existence of specific cannabinoid binding sites.

L. Harris,R. Carchman,B. Martin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3205(78)90082-6

1978-04-01

Life Science

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 10. Prediction reliability of binding affinities and binding poses for RNA-ligand complexes

Dejun Jiang,Hongyan Du,Huifeng Zhao,Yafeng Deng,Zhenxing Wu,Jike Wang,Yundian Zeng,Haotian Zhang,Xiaorui Wang,Ercheng Wang,Tingjun Hou,Chang-Yu Hsieh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d3cp04366e

2024-03-27

Abstract:Ribonucleic acid (RNA)-ligand interactions play a pivotal role in a wide spectrum of biological processes, ranging from protein biosynthesis to cellular reproduction. This recognition has prompted the broader acceptance of RNA as a viable candidate for drug targets. Delving into the atomic-scale understanding of RNA-ligand interactions holds paramount importance in unraveling intricate molecular mechanisms and further contributing to RNA-based drug discovery. Computational approaches, particularly molecular docking, offer an efficient way of predicting the interactions between RNA and small molecules. However, the accuracy and reliability of these predictions heavily depend on the performance of scoring functions (SFs). In contrast to the majority of SFs used in RNA-ligand docking, the end-point binding free energy calculation methods, such as molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area (MM/GBSA) and molecular mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann surface area (MM/PBSA), stand as theoretically more rigorous approaches. Yet, the evaluation of their effectiveness in predicting both binding affinities and binding poses within RNA-ligand systems remains unexplored. This study first reported the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA with diverse solvation models, interior dielectric constants (εin) and force fields in the context of binding affinity prediction for 29 RNA-ligand complexes. MM/GBSA is based on short (5 ns) molecular dynamics (MD) simulations in an explicit solvent with the YIL force field; the GBGBn2 model with higher interior dielectric constant (εin = 12, 16 or 20) yields the best correlation (Rp = -0.513), which outperforms the best correlation (Rp = -0.317, rDock) offered by various docking programs. Then, the efficacy of MM/GBSA in identifying the near-native binding poses from the decoys was assessed based on 56 RNA-ligand complexes. However, it is evident that MM/GBSA has limitations in accurately predicting binding poses for RNA-ligand systems, particularly compared with notably proficient docking programs like rDock and PLANTS. The best top-1 success rate achieved by MM/GBSA rescoring is 39.3%, which falls below the best results given by docking programs (50%, PLNATS). This study represents the first evaluation of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA for RNA-ligand systems and is expected to provide valuable insights into their successful application to RNA targets.
Assessing the performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 6. Capability to predict protein-protein binding free energies and re-rank binding poses generated by protein-protein docking.

Fu Chen,Hui Liu,Huiyong Sun,Peichen Pan,Youyong Li,Dan Li,Tingjun Hou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/c6cp03670h

IF: 3.3

2016-01-01

Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics

Abstract:Understanding protein-protein interactions (PPIs) is quite important to elucidate crucial biological processes and even design compounds that interfere with PPIs with pharmaceutical significance. Protein-protein docking can afford the atomic structural details of protein-protein complexes, but the accurate prediction of the three-dimensional structures for protein-protein systems is still notoriously difficult due in part to the lack of an ideal scoring function for protein-protein docking. Compared with most scoring functions used in protein-protein docking, the Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area (MM/GBSA) and Molecular Mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA) methodologies are more theoretically rigorous, but their overall performance for the predictions of binding affinities and binding poses for protein-protein systems has not been systematically evaluated. In this study, we first evaluated the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA to predict the binding affinities for 46 protein-protein complexes. On the whole, different force fields, solvation models, and interior dielectric constants have obvious impacts on the prediction accuracy of MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA. The MM/GBSA calculations based on the ff02 force field, the GB model developed by Onufriev et al. and a low interior dielectric constant (epsilon(in) = 1) yield the best correlation between the predicted binding affinities and the experimental data (r(p) = -0.647), which is better than MM/PBSA (r(p) = -0.523) and a number of empirical scoring functions used in protein-protein docking (r(p) = -0.141 to -0.529). Then, we examined the capability of MM/GBSA to identify the possible near-native binding structures from the decoys generated by ZDOCK for 43 protein-protein systems. The results illustrate that the MM/GBSA rescoring has better capability to distinguish the correct binding structures from the decoys than the ZDOCK scoring. Besides, the optimal interior dielectric constant of MM/GBSA for re-ranking docking poses may be determined by analyzing the characteristics of protein-protein binding interfaces. Considering the relatively high prediction accuracy and low computational cost, MM/GBSA may be a good choice for predicting the binding affinities and identifying correct binding structures for protein-protein systems.
Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 9. Prediction reliability of binding affinities and binding poses for protein-peptide complexes

Gaoqi Weng,Ercheng Wang,Fu Chen,Huiyong Sun,Zhe Wang,Tingjun Hou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/c9cp01674k

2019-05-15

Abstract:A significant number of protein-protein interactions (PPIs) are mediated through the interactions between proteins and peptide segments, and therefore determination of protein-peptide interactions (PpIs) is critical to gain an in-depth understanding of the PPI network and even design peptides or small molecules capable of modulating PPIs. Computational approaches, especially molecular docking, provide an efficient way to model PpIs, and a reliable scoring function that can recognize the correct binding conformations for protein-peptide complexes is one of the most important components in protein-peptide docking. The end-point binding free energy calculation methods, such as MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA, are theoretically more rigorous than most empirical and semi-empirical scoring functions designed for protein-peptide docking, but their performance in predicting binding affinities and binding poses for protein-peptide systems has not been systematically assessed. In this study, we first evaluated the capability of MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA with different solvation models, interior dielectric constants (εin) and force fields to predict the binding affinities for 53 protein-peptide complexes. For the 19 short peptides with 5-12 residues, MM/PBSA based on the minimized structures in explicit solvent with the ff99 force field and εin = 2 yields the best correlation between the predicted binding affinities and the experimental data (rp = 0.748), while for the 34 medium-size peptides with 20-25 residues, MM/GBSA based on 1 ns of molecular dynamics (MD) simulations in implicit solvent with the ff03 force field, the GBOBC1 model and a low interior dielectric constant (εin = 1) yields the best accuracy (rp = 0.735). Then, we assessed the rescoring capability of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA to distinguish the correct binding conformations from the decoys for 112 protein-peptide systems. The results illustrate that MM/PBSA based on the minimized structures with the ff99 or ff14SB force field and MM/GBSA based on the minimized structures with the ff03 force field show excellent capability to recognize the near-native binding poses for the short and medium-size peptides, respectively, and they outperform the predictions given by two popular protein-peptide docking algorithms (pepATTRACT and HPEPDOCK). Therefore, MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA are powerful tools to predict the binding affinities and identify the correct binding poses for protein-peptide systems.
Assessing the Performance of the Molecular Mechanics/poisson Boltzmann Surface Area and Molecular Mechanics/generalized Born Surface Area Methods. II. the Accuracy of Ranking Poses Generated from Docking

Tingjun Hou,Junmei Wang,Youyong Li,Wei Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21666

2010-01-01

Journal of Computational Chemistry

Abstract:In molecular docking, it is challenging to develop a scoring function that is accurate to conduct high‐throughput screenings. Most scoring functions implemented in popular docking software packages were developed with many approximations for computational efficiency, which sacrifices the accuracy of prediction. With advanced technology and powerful computational hardware nowadays, it is feasible to use rigorous scoring functions, such as molecular mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann surface area (MM/PBSA) and molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area (MM/GBSA) in molecular docking studies. Here, we systematically investigated the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA to identify the correct binding conformations and predict the binding free energies for 98 protein–ligand complexes. Comparison studies showed that MM/GBSA (69.4%) outperformed MM/PBSA (45.5%) and many popular scoring functions to identify the correct binding conformations. Moreover, we found that molecular dynamics simulations are necessary for some systems to identify the correct binding conformations. Based on our results, we proposed the guideline for MM/GBSA to predict the binding conformations. We then tested the performance of MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA to reproduce the binding free energies of the 98 protein–ligand complexes. The best prediction of MM/GBSA model with internal dielectric constant 2.0, produced a Spearman's correlation coefficient of 0.66, which is better than MM/PBSA (0.49) and almost all scoring functions used in molecular docking. In summary, MM/GBSA performs well for both binding pose predictions and binding free‐energy estimations and is efficient to re‐score the top‐hit poses produced by other less‐accurate scoring functions. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem, 2011
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.

Huiyong Sun,Youyong Li,Sheng Tian,Lei Xu,Tingjun Hou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/c4cp01388c

IF: 3.3

2014-01-01

Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics

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.
Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 5. Improved docking performance using high solute dielectric constant MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA rescoring.

Huiyong Sun,Youyong Li,Mingyun Shen,Sheng Tian,Lei Xu,Peichen Pan,Yan Guan,Tingjun Hou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/c4cp03179b

IF: 3.3

2014-01-01

Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics

Abstract:With the rapid development of computational techniques and hardware, more rigorous and precise theoretical models have been used to predict the binding affinities of a large number of small molecules to biomolecules. By employing continuum solvation models, the MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA methodologies achieve a good balance between low computational cost and reasonable prediction accuracy. In this study, we have thoroughly investigated the effects of interior dielectric constant, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, and the number of top-scored docking poses on the performance of the MM/GBSA and MM/ PBSA rescoring of docking poses for three tyrosine kinases, including ABL, ALK, and BRAF. Overall, the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA rescoring achieved comparative accuracies based on a relatively higher solute (or interior) dielectric constant (i.e. epsilon = 2, or 4), and could markedly improve the 'screening power' and 'ranking power' given by Autodock. Moreover, with a relatively higher solute dielectric constant, the MM/PBSA or MM/GBSA rescoring based on the best scored docking poses and the multiple top-scored docking poses gave similar predictions, implying that much computational cost can be saved by considering the best scored docking poses only. Besides, compared with the rescoring based on the minimized structures, the rescoring based on the MD simulations might not be completely necessary due to its negligible impact on the docking performance. Considering the much higher computational demand of MM/PBSA, MM/GBSA with a high solute dielectric constant (epsilon = 2 or 4) is recommended for the virtual screening of tyrosine kinases.
Assessing the Performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA Methods. 1. The Accuracy of Binding Free Energy Calculations Based on Molecular Dynamics Simulations

Tingjun Hou,Junmei Wang,Youyong Li,Wei Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ci100275a

IF: 6.162

2010-11-30

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Abstract:The Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA) and the Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area (MM/GBSA) methods calculate binding free energies for macromolecules by combining molecular mechanics calculations and continuum solvation models. To systematically evaluate the performance of these methods, we report here an extensive study of 59 ligands interacting with six different proteins. First, we explored the effects of the length of the molecular dynamics (MD) simulation, ranging from 400 to 4800 ps, and the solute dielectric constant (1, 2, or 4) on the binding free energies predicted by MM/PBSA. The following three important conclusions could be observed: (1) MD simulation length has an obvious impact on the predictions, and longer MD simulation is not always necessary to achieve better predictions. (2) The predictions are quite sensitive to the solute dielectric constant, and this parameter should be carefully determined according to the characteristics of the protein/ligand binding interface. (3) Conformational entropy often show large fluctuations in MD trajectories, and a large number of snapshots are necessary to achieve stable predictions. Next, we evaluated the accuracy of the binding free energies calculated by three Generalized Born (GB) models. We found that the GB model developed by Onufriev and Case was the most successful model in ranking the binding affinities of the studied inhibitors. Finally, we evaluated the performance of MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA in predicting binding free energies. Our results showed that MM/PBSA performed better in calculating absolute, but not necessarily relative, binding free energies than MM/GBSA. Considering its computational efficiency, MM/GBSA can serve as a powerful tool in drug design, where correct ranking of inhibitors is often emphasized.

chemistry, multidisciplinary, medicinal,computer science, interdisciplinary applications, information systems
[Remarks on the work of L. Brandt and J. Kormann. Volatile anesthetics and tricyclic antidepressives].

C. Spiss

1986-09-01

Der Anaesthesist

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

Lei Xu,Huiyong Sun,Youyong Li,Junmei Wang,Tingjun Hou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/jp404160y

IF: 3.466

2013-01-01

The Journal of Physical Chemistry B

Abstract:Here, we systematically investigated how the force fields and the partial charge models for ligands affect the ranking performance of the binding free energies predicted by the Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA) and Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area (MM/GBSA) approaches. A total of 46 small molecules targeted to five different protein receptors were employed to test the following issues: (1) the impact of five AMBER force fields (ff99, ff99SB, ff99SB-ILDN, ff03, and ff12SB) on the performance of MM/GBSA, (2) the influence of the time scale of molecular dynamics (MD) simulations on the performance of MM/GBSA with different force fields, (3) the impact of five AMBER force fields on the performance of MM/PBSA, and (4) the impact of four different charge models (RESP, ESP, AM1-BCC, and Gasteiger) for small molecules on the performance of MM/PBSA or MM/GBSA. Based on our simulation results, the following important conclusions can be obtained: (1) for short time-scale MD simulations (1 ns or less), the ff03 force field gives the best predictions by both MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA; (2) for middle time-scale MD simulations (2-4 ns), MM/GBSA based on the ff99 force field yields the best predictions, while MM/PBSA based on the ff99SB force field does the best; however, longer MD simulations, for example, 5 ns or more, may not be quite necessary; (3) for most cases, MM/PBSA with the Tan's parameters shows better ranking capability than MM/GBSA (GB(OBC1)); (4) the RESP charges show the best performance for both MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA, and the AM1-BCC and ESP charges can also give fairly satisfactory predictions. Our results provide useful guidance for the practical applications of the MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA approaches.
Test Mm-Pb/Sa on True Conformational Ensembles of Protein-Ligand Complexes

Yan Li,Zhihai Liu,Renxiao Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ci100036a

IF: 6.162

2010-01-01

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Abstract:The molecular mechanics Poisson-Boltzmann surface area (MM-PB/SA) method has been popular for computing protein ligand binding free energies in recent years. All previous evaluations of the MM-PB/SA method are based upon computer-generated conformational ensembles, which may be affected by the defective computational methods used for preparing these conformational ensembles. In an attempt to reach more convincing conclusions, we have evaluated the MM-PB/SA method on a set of 24 diverse protein ligand complexes, each of which has a set of conformations derived from NMR spectroscopy. Our results indicate that both MM-PB/SA and molecular mechanics generalized Born surface area (MM-GB/SA) are able to produce a modest correlation between their results and the experimentally measured binding free energies on our test set. In particular, both MM-PB/SA and MM-GB/SA produced better results by using a representative structure (R = 0.72-0.79) rather than averaging over the conformational ensemble of each given complex (R = 0.61-0.74). A head-to-head comparison with four selected scoring functions (X-Score, PLP, Chem Score, and Drug Score) on the same test set reveals that MM-PB/SA and MM-GB/SA results are marginally better than those produced by scoring funcitons, supporting the value of the MM-PB/SA method. Nevertheless, scoring functions are still more cost-effective options, especially for high-throughput tasks.
Evaluating the performance of MM/PBSA for binding affinity prediction using class A GPCR crystal structures

Mei Qian Yau,Abigail L Emtage,Nathaniel J Y Chan,Stephen W Doughty,Jason S E Loo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-019-00201-3

Abstract:The recent expansion of GPCR crystal structures provides the opportunity to assess the performance of structure-based drug design methods for the GPCR superfamily. Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA)-based methods are commonly used for binding affinity prediction, as they provide an intermediate compromise of speed and accuracy between the empirical scoring functions used in docking and more robust free energy perturbation methods. In this study, we systematically assessed the performance of MM/PBSA in predicting experimental binding free energies using twenty Class A GPCR crystal structures and 934 known ligands. Correlations between predicted and experimental binding free energies varied significantly between individual targets, ranging from r = - 0.334 in the inactive-state CB1 cannabinoid receptor to r = 0.781 in the active-state CB1 cannabinoid receptor, while average correlation across all twenty targets was relatively poor (r = 0.183). MM/PBSA provided better predictions of binding free energies compared to docking scores in eight out of the twenty GPCR targets while performing worse for four targets. MM/PBSA binding affinity predictions calculated using a single, energy minimized structure provided comparable predictions to sampling from molecular dynamics simulations and may be more efficient when computational cost becomes restrictive. Additionally, we observed that restricting MM/PBSA calculations to ligands with a high degree of structural similarity to the crystal structure ligands improved performance in several cases. In conclusion, while MM/PBSA remains a valuable tool for GPCR structure-based drug design, its performance in predicting the binding free energies of GPCR ligands remains highly system-specific as demonstrated in a subset of twenty Class A GPCRs, and validation of MM/PBSA-based methods for each individual case is recommended before prospective use.
MM/PB(GB)SA benchmarks on soluble proteins and membrane proteins

Shiyu Wang,Xiaolin Sun,Wenqiang Cui,Shuguang Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.1018351

IF: 5.6

2022-12-02

Frontiers in Pharmacology

Abstract:Predicting protein-ligand binding free energy rapidly and accurately remains a challenging question in modern drug discovery. Molecular mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann (Generalized Born) surface area (MM/PB(GB)SA) has emerged as an essential tool for accelerating cost-efficient binding free energy calculation. This study presents benchmarks with three membrane-bound protein systems and six soluble protein systems. Different parameters were sampled for different benchmarks to explore the highest accuracy. These include ligand charges, protein force fields, extra points, GB models, nonpolar optimization methods, internal dielectric constants and membrane dielectric constants. Comparisons of accuracy were made between MM/PB(GB)SA, docking and free energy perturbation (FEP). The results reveal a competitive performance between MM/PB(GB)SA and FEP. In summary, MM/PB(GB)SA is a powerful approach to predict ligand binding free energy rapidly and accurately. Parameters of MM/PB(GB)SA calculations, such as the GB models and membrane dielectric constants, need to be optimized for different systems. This method can be served as a powerful tool for drug design.

pharmacology & pharmacy
New facile method to measure cyanide in blood.

W. Blackledge,C. Blackledge,A. Griesel,S. Mahon,M. Brenner,R. Pilz,G. Boss

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ac100519z

IF: 7.4

2010-05-15

Analytical Chemistry

Abstract:Cyanide, a well-known toxic substance that could be used as a weapon of mass destruction, is likely responsible for a substantial percentage of smoke inhalation deaths. The vitamin B(12) precursor cobinamide binds cyanide with high affinity, changing color and, correspondingly, its spectrophotometric spectrum in the ultraviolet/visible light range. Based on these spectral changes, we developed a new facile method to measure cyanide in blood using cobinamide. The limit of detection was 0.25 nmol, while the limit of quantitation was approximately 0.5 nmol. The method was reliable, requires minimal equipment, and correlated well with a previously established method. Moreover, we adapted it for rapid qualitative assessment of cyanide concentration, which could be used in the field to identify cyanide-poisoned subjects for immediate treatment.
dMM-PBSA: A New HADDOCK Scoring Function for Protein-Peptide Docking

Dimitrios Spiliotopoulos,Panagiotis L. Kastritis,Adrien S. J. Melquiond,Alexandre M. J. J. Bonvin,Giovanna Musco,Walter Rocchia,Andrea Spitaleri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2016.00046

IF: 6.113

2016-08-31

Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences

Abstract:Molecular-docking programs coupled with suitable scoring functions are now established and very useful tools enabling computational chemists to rapidly screen large chemical databases and thereby to identify promising candidate compounds for further experimental processing. In a broader scenario, predicting binding affinity is one of the most critical and challenging components of computer-aided structure-based drug design. The development of a molecular docking scoring function which in principle could combine both features, namely ranking putative poses and predicting complex affinity, would be of paramount importance. Here, we systematically investigated the performance of the MM-PBSA approach, using two different Poisson-Boltzmann solvers (APBS and DelPhi), in the currently rising field of protein-peptide interactions (PPIs), identifying the correct binding conformations of 19 different protein-peptide complexes and predicting their binding free energies. First, we scored the decoy structures from HADDOCK calculation via the MM-PBSA approach in order to assess the capability of retrieving near-native poses in the best-scoring clusters and of evaluating the corresponding free energies of binding. MM-PBSA behaves well in finding the poses corresponding to the lowest binding free energy, however the built-in HADDOCK score shows a better performance. In order to improve the MM-PBSA-based scoring function, we dampened the MM-PBSA solvation and coulombic terms by 0.2, as proposed in the HADDOCK score and LIE approaches. The new dampened MM-PBSA (dMM-PBSA) outperforms the original MM-PBSA and ranks the decoys structures as the HADDOCK score does. Second, we found a good correlation between the dMM-PBSA and HADDOCK scores for the near-native clusters of each system and the experimental binding energies, respectively. Therefore, we propose a new scoring function, dMM-PBSA, to be used together with the built-in HADDOCK score in the context of protein-peptide docking simulations.

biochemistry & molecular biology
Evaluation on Performance of MM/PBS A in Nucleic Acid-Protein Systems

Yuan-Qiang Chen,Yan-Jing Sheng,Hong-Ming Ding,Yu-Qiang Ma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1056/ac3a5c

2021-01-01

Chinese Physics B

Abstract:The molecular mechanics/Poisson–Boltzmann surface area (MM/PBSA) method has been widely used in predicting the binding affinity among ligands, proteins, and nucleic acids. However, the accuracy of the predicted binding energy by the standard MM/PBSA is not always good, especially in highly charged systems. In this work, we take the protein–nucleic acid complexes as an example, and showed that the use of screening electrostatic energy (instead of Coulomb electrostatic energy) in molecular mechanics can greatly improve the performance of MM/PBSA. In particular, the Pearson correlation coefficient of dataset II in the modified MM/PBSA (i.e., screening MM/PBSA) is about 0.52, much better than that (< 0.33) in the standard MM/PBSA. Further, we also evaluate the effect of solute dielectric constant and salt concentration on the performance of the screening MM/PBSA. The present study highlights the potential power of the screening MM/PBSA for predicting the binding energy in highly charged bio-systems.
Pbsa_e: A Pbsa-Based Free Energy Estimator for Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity

Xiao Liu,Jinfeng Liu,Tong Zhu,Lujia Zhang,Xiao He,John Z. H. Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00001

IF: 6.162

2016-01-01

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Abstract:Improving the accuracy of scoring functions for estimating protein ligand binding affinity is of significant interest as well as practical utility in drug discovery. In this work, PBSA_E, a new free energy estimator based on the molecular mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann surface area (MM/PBSA) descriptors, has been developed. This free energy estimator was optimized using high-quality experimental data from a training set consisting of 145 protein ligand complexes. The method was validated on two separate test sets containing 121 and 130 complexes. Comparison of the binding affinities predicted using the present method with those obtained using three popular scoring functions, i.e., GlideXP, GlideSP, and SYBYL_F, demonstrated that the PBSA_E method is more accurate. This new energy estimator requires a MM/PBSA calculation of the protein ligand binding energy for a single complex configuration, which is typically obtained by optimizing the crystal structure. The present study shows that PBSA_E has the potential to become a robust tool for more reliable estimation of protein ligand binding affinity in structure-based drug design.
Assessing the Performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA Methods. 7. Entropy Effects on the Performance of End-Point Binding Free Energy Calculation Approaches.

Huiyong Sun,Lili Duan,Fu Chen,Hui Liu,Zhe Wang,Peichen Pan,Feng Zhu,John Z. H. Zhang,Tingjun Hou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/c7cp07623a

2018-01-01

Abstract:Entropy effects play an important role in drug-target interactions, but the entropic contribution to ligand-binding affinity is often neglected by end-point binding free energy calculation methods, such as MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA, due to the expensive computational cost of normal mode analysis (NMA). Here, we systematically investigated entropy effects on the prediction power of MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA using >1500 protein-ligand systems and six representative AMBER force fields. Two computationally efficient methods, including NMA based on truncated structures and the interaction entropy approach, were used to estimate the entropic contributions to ligand-target binding free energies. In terms of the overall accuracy, we found that, for the minimized structures, in most cases the inclusion of the conformational entropies predicted by truncated NMA (enthalpynmode_min_9Å) compromises the overall accuracy of MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA compared with the enthalpies calculated based on the minimized structures (enthalpymin). However, for the MD trajectories, the binding free energies can be improved by the inclusion of the conformation entropies predicted by either truncated-NMA for a relatively high dielectric constant (εin = 4) or the interaction entropy method for εin = 1-4. In terms of reproducing the absolute binding free energies, the binding free energies estimated by including the truncated-NMA entropies based on the MD trajectories (ΔGnmode_md_9Å) give the lowest average absolute deviations against the experimental data among all the tested strategies for both MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA. Although the inclusion of the truncated NMA based on the MD trajectories (ΔGnmode_md_9Å) for a relatively high dielectric constant gave the overall best result and the lowest average absolute deviations against the experimental data (for the ff03 force field), it needs too much computational time. Alternatively, considering that the interaction entropy method does not incur any additional computational cost and can give comparable (at high dielectric constant, εin = 4) or even better (at low dielectric constant, εin = 1-2) results than the truncated-NMA entropy (ΔGnmode_md_9Å), the interaction entropy approach is recommended to estimate the entropic component for MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA based on MD trajectories, especially for a diverse dataset. Furthermore, we compared the predictions of MM/GBSA with six different AMBER force fields. The results show that the ff03 force field (ff03 for proteins and gaff with AM1-BCC charges for ligands) performs the best, but the predictions given by the tested force fields are comparable, implying that the MM/GBSA predictions are not very sensitive to force fields.
Plaque-removal efficacy of four types of dental floss.

G. Terézhalmy,R. Bartizek,A. Biesbrock

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.070345

2008-02-01

The Journal of Periodontology

Abstract:BACKGROUND Effective plaque removal is essential for gingival health, and dental floss is used to augment plaque removal achieved with a toothbrush. METHODS This randomized, controlled, examiner-masked, five-period crossover study examined plaque removal in 25 subjects following single use with an American Dental Association reference manual toothbrush alone and in combination with four floss products: three traditional (unwaxed, woven, and shred-resistant) and one powered flosser. Plaque was scored before and after brushing for 1 minute. The Rustogi modified Navy plaque index was used to focus scores on tooth areas contacted during the proper use of dental floss. RESULTS Mean plaque reductions (baseline minus postbrushing) in floss contact areas were as follows: 0.181 with the toothbrush alone; 0.228, 0.217, and 0.210 for the toothbrush in combination with the three traditional flosses, unwaxed, woven, and shred-resistant, respectively; and 0.252 for the toothbrush plus powered flosser. No statistically significant differences were found between the three traditional floss treatments. All four floss treatments showed greater (P <0.05) mean plaque removal than the toothbrush alone. Mean plaque removal with the powered flosser combination was greater than for the woven combination and shred-resistant combination (both P < or =0.006) and fell just short of significance compared to the unwaxed combination (P = 0.051). CONCLUSIONS All four floss products in combination with a manual toothbrush removed plaque significantly better than the toothbrush alone. Among floss types, there was evidence of superiority for the powered flosser, but there were no significant treatment differences between the three traditional floss products.
Assessing the Performance of Screening MM/PBSA in Protein-Ligand Interactions

Yu-Xin Zhu,Yan-Jing Sheng,Yu-Qiang Ma,Hong-Ming Ding

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.1c09424

IF: 3.466

2022-01-01

The Journal of Physical Chemistry B

Abstract:Accurate calculation of the binding free energies between a protein and a ligand is the primary objective of structure-based drug design, but it still remains a challenging problem. In this work, we apply the screening molecular mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann surface area (MM/PBSA) method to calculate the binding affinity of protein-ligand interactions. Our results show that the performance of the screening MM/PBSA is better than that of the standard MM/PBSA, especially in a charged-ligand system. In addition, we also investigate the effect of the solute dielectric constant on the results, and find that the optimal solute dielectric constants are different between the neutral-ligand system and the charged-ligand system. Moreover, we also evaluate the effect of the atomic-charge methods on the performance of the screening MM/PBSA. The present study demonstrates that the screening MM/PBSA should be a reliable method for calculating binding energy of biosystems.
Exploring the Binding Mechanism Between Human Profilin (PFN1) and Polyproline-10 Through Binding Mode Screening

Leili Zhang,David R. Bell,Binquan Luan,Ruhong Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/418830

2019-01-01

Abstract:The large magnitude of protein-protein interaction (PPI) pairs within the human interactome necessitates the development of predictive models and screening tools to better understand this fundamental molecular communication. However, despite enormous efforts from various groups to develop predictive techniques in the last decade, PPI complex structures are in general still very challenging to predict due to the large number of degrees of freedom. In this study, we use the binding complex of human profilin (PFN1) and polyproline-10 (P10) as a model system to examine various approaches, with the aim of going beyond normal protein docking for PPI prediction and evaluation. The potential of mean force (PMF) was first obtained from the timeconsuming umbrella sampling, which confirmed that the most stable binding structure identified by the maximal PMF difference is indeed the crystallographic binding structure. Moreover, crucial residues previously identified in experimental studies, W3, H133 and S137 of PFN1, were found to form favorable hydrogen bonds with P10, suggesting a zipping process during the binding between PFN1 and P10. We then explored both regular molecular dynamics (MD) and steered molecular dynamics (SMD) simulations, seeking for better criteria of ranking the PPI prediction. Despite valuable information obtained from conventional MD simulations, neither the commonly used interaction energy between the two binding parties nor the long-term root mean square displacement (RMSD) correlates well with the PMF results. On the other hand, with a sizable collection of trajectories, we demonstrated that the average rupture work calculated from SMD simulations correlates fairly well with the PMFs (R2 = 0.67), making it a promising PPI screening method.

Evidence for the existence of specific cannabinoid binding sites.

Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 10. Prediction reliability of binding affinities and binding poses for RNA-ligand complexes

Assessing the performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 6. Capability to predict protein-protein binding free energies and re-rank binding poses generated by protein-protein docking.

Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 9. Prediction reliability of binding affinities and binding poses for protein-peptide complexes

Assessing the Performance of the Molecular Mechanics/poisson Boltzmann Surface Area and Molecular Mechanics/generalized Born Surface Area Methods. II. the Accuracy of Ranking Poses Generated from Docking

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.

Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 5. Improved docking performance using high solute dielectric constant MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA rescoring.

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

[Remarks on the work of L. Brandt and J. Kormann. Volatile anesthetics and tricyclic antidepressives].

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

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

Evaluating the performance of MM/PBSA for binding affinity prediction using class A GPCR crystal structures

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

New facile method to measure cyanide in blood.

dMM-PBSA: A New HADDOCK Scoring Function for Protein-Peptide Docking

Evaluation on Performance of MM/PBS A in Nucleic Acid-Protein Systems

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

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

Plaque-removal efficacy of four types of dental floss.

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

Exploring the Binding Mechanism Between Human Profilin (PFN1) and Polyproline-10 Through Binding Mode Screening