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

C. Spiss

1986-09-01

Der Anaesthesist

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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

Yan-jing Sheng,Yue-wen Yin,Yu-qiang Ma,Hong-ming Ding

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00410

IF: 6.162

2021-01-01

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Abstract:Accurate calculation of protein-protein binding free energy is of great importance in biological and medical science, yet it remains a hugely challenging problem. In this work, we develop a new strategy in which a screened electrostatic energy (i.e., adding an exponential damping factor to the Coulombic interaction energy) is used within the framework of the molecular mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann surface area (MM/PBSA) method. Our results show that the Pearson correlation coefficient in the modified MM/PBSA is over 0.70, which is much better than that in the standard MM/PBSA, especially in the Amber14SB force field. In particular, the performance of the standard MM/PBSA is very poor in a system where the proteins carry like charges. Moreover, we also calculated the mean absolute error (MAE) between the calculated and experimental ΔG values and found that the MAE in the modified MM/PBSA was indeed much smaller than that in the standard MM/PBSA. Furthermore, the effect of the dielectric constant of the proteins and the salt conditions on the results was also investigated. The present study highlights the potential power of the modified MM/PBSA for accurately predicting the binding energy in highly charged biosystems.
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.
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
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.
Including Explicit Water Molecules as Part of the Protein Structure in MM/PBSA Calculations.

Yong-Liang Zhu,Paul Beroza,Dean R Artis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ci4001794

IF: 6.162

2014-01-01

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Abstract:Water is the natural medium of molecules in the cell and plays an important role in protein structure, function and interaction with small molecule ligands. However, the widely used molecular mechanics Poisson-Boltzmann surface area (MM/PBSA) method for binding energy calculation does not explicitly take account of water molecules that mediate key protein-ligand interactions. We have developed a protocol to include water molecules that mediate ligand-protein interactions as part of the protein structure in calculation of MM/PBSA binding energies (a method we refer to as water-MM/PBSA) for a series of JNK3 kinase inhibitors. Improved correlation between water-MM/PBSA binding energies and experimental IC50 values was obtained compared to that obtained from classical MM/PBSA binding energy. This improved correlation was further validated using sets of neuraminidase and avidin inhibitors. The observed improvement, however, appears to be limited to systems in which there are water-mediated ligand-protein hydrogen bond interactions. We conclude that the water-MM/PBSA method performs better than classical MM/PBSA in predicting binding affinities when water molecules play a direct role in mediating ligand-protein hydrogen bond interactions.
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
VAD-MM/GBSA: A Variable Atomic Dielectric MM/GBSA Model for Improved Accuracy in Protein–Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculations

Ercheng Wang,Weitao Fu,Dejun Jiang,Huiyong Sun,Junmei Wang,Xujun Zhang,Gaoqi Weng,Hui Liu,Peng Tao,Tingjun Hou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00091

IF: 6.162

2021-05-20

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Abstract:The molecular mechanics/generalized Born surface area (MM/GBSA) has been widely used in end-point binding free energy prediction in structure-based drug design (SBDD). However, in practice, it is usually being treated as a disputed method mostly because of its system dependence. Here, combining with machine-learning optimization, we developed a novel version of MM/GBSA, named variable atomic dielectric MM/GBSA (VAD-MM/GBSA), by assigning variable dielectric constants directly to the protein/ligand atoms. The new strategy exhibits markedly improved accuracy in binding affinity calculations for various protein–ligand systems and is promising to be used in the postprocessing of structure-based virtual screening. Moreover, VAD-MM/GBSA outperformed prime MM/GBSA in Schrödinger software and showed remarkable predictive performance for specific protein targets, such as POL polyprotein, human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) protease, etc. Our study showed that the VAD-MM/GBSA method with little extra computational overhead provides a potential replacement of the MM/GBSA in AMBER software. An online web server of VAD-MMGBSA has been developed and is now available at <a class="extLink" href="http://cadd.zju.edu.cn/vdgb">http://cadd.zju.edu.cn/vdgb</a>.The Supporting Information is available free of charge at <a class="ext-link" href="/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00091?goto=supporting-info">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00091</a>.Training set and test sets 1, 2, and 3 used in this work, respectively (Tables S1–S4); descriptors of ligands and pockets used in XGBoost regression with feature importance (Table S5); the distributions of descriptors (feature importance >0.03) of ligands and pockets for the complexes in the training set (Table S6); the values of descriptors (feature importance >0.03) of ligands and pockets for the eight protein-target families described in <a class="internalNav" href="#fig2">Figure </a><a class="internalNav" href="#fig2">2</a> (Tables S7–S14); the mean dielectric values obtained with the VAD model (Tables S15 and S16); the search space in annealing-based optimization (Figure S1); the two coefficients <i>a</i> and <i>b</i> are related to the ligand volumes (Figure S2); residual plots and binding free energy prediction comparison using VAD-MM/GBSA and VD114-MM/GBSA for the eight protein-target families described in <a class="internalNav" href="#fig2">Figure </a><a class="internalNav" href="#fig2">2</a> (Figure S3) (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00091/suppl_file/ci1c00091_si_001.pdf">PDF</a>)This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

chemistry, multidisciplinary, medicinal,computer science, interdisciplinary applications, information systems
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.
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.
End-Point Binding Free Energy Calculation with MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA: Strategies and Applications in Drug Design

Ercheng Wang,Huiyong Sun,Junmei Wang,Zhe Wang,Hui Liu,John Z. H. Zhang,Tingjun Hou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00055

IF: 62.1

2019-01-01

Chemical Reviews

Abstract:Molecular mechanics Poisson-Boltzmann surface area (MM/PBSA) and molecular mechanics generalized Born surface area (MM/GBSA) are arguably very popular methods for binding free energy prediction since they are more accurate than most scoring functions of molecular docking and less computationally demanding than alchemical free energy methods. MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA have been widely used in biomolecular studies such as protein folding, protein-ligand binding, protein-protein interaction, etc. In this review, methods to adjust the polar solvation energy and to improve the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA calculations are reviewed and discussed. The latest applications of MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA in drug design are also presented. This review intends to provide readers with guidance for practically applying MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA in drug design and related research fields.

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

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

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. 9. Prediction reliability of binding affinities and binding poses for protein-peptide 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.

New facile method to measure cyanide in blood.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Evidence for the existence of specific cannabinoid binding sites.

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

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

VAD-MM/GBSA: A Variable Atomic Dielectric MM/GBSA Model for Improved Accuracy in Protein–Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculations

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

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

End-Point Binding Free Energy Calculation with MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA: Strategies and Applications in Drug Design