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.

Development and Evaluation of MM/GBSA Based on a Variable Dielectric GB Model for Predicting Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities

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

Assessing the performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 10. Impacts of enhanced sampling and variable dielectric model on protein-protein Interactions

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

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

Prediction of Binding Free Energy of Protein–Ligand Complexes with a Hybrid Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area and Machine Learning Method

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

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.

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

Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 8. Predicting binding free energies and poses of protein-RNA 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

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

Accurate and Efficient Calculation of Protein-Protein Binding Free Energy-Interaction Entropy with Residue Type-Specific Dielectric Constants.

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

Improving the accuracy of predicting protein-ligand binding-free energy with semiempirical quantum chemistry charge.

Calculation of Protein–ligand Binding Affinities Based on a Fragment Quantum Mechanical Method

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

The Application of the MM/GBSA Method in the Binding Pose Prediction of FGFR Inhibitors