Abstract:Accurate prediction of binding free energies is critical to streamlining the drug development and protein design process. With the advent of GPU acceleration, absolute alchemical methods, which simulate the removal of ligand electrostatics and van der Waals interactions with the protein, have become routinely accessible and provide a physically rigorous approach that enables full consideration of flexibility and solvent interaction. However, standard explicit solvent simulations are unable to model protonation or electronic polarization changes upon ligand transfer from water to the protein interior, leading to inaccurate prediction of binding affinities for charged molecules. Here, we perform extensive simulation totaling ∼540 μs to benchmark the impact of modeling conditions on predictive accuracy for absolute alchemical simulations. Binding to urokinase plasminogen activator (UPA), a protein frequently overexpressed in metastatic tumors, is evaluated for a set of 10 inhibitors with extended flexibility, highly charged character, and titratable properties. We demonstrate that the alchemical simulations can be adapted to utilize the MBAR/PBSA method to improve the accuracy upon incorporating electronic polarization, highlighting the importance of polarization in alchemical simulations of binding affinities. Comparison of binding energy prediction at various protonation states indicates that proper electrostatic setup is also crucial in binding affinity prediction of charged systems, prompting us to propose an alternative binding mode with protonated ligand phenol and Hid-46 at the binding site, a testable hypothesis for future experimental validation.The Supporting Information is available free of charge at <a class="ext-link" href="/doi/10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01305?goto=supporting-info">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01305</a>.Discussion of apparent binding free energies with one titratable group, MBAR/PBSA accuracy, binding free energy predictions for all conditions, illustration of restraint definitions, decharging and VDW free energies from alchemical simulations, illustration of the UPA active site with ligand, B-Factor, GAFF and GAFF2 structure analysis, and correlation plots of binding affinity for ligand restraints, differing protonation states, with and without outlier and with MBAR/PBSA postprocessing (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01305/suppl_file/ct0c01305_si_001.pdf">PDF</a>)This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

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

Binding Modes and Conformational Changes of FK506-binding Protein 51 Induced by Inhibitor Bindings: Insight into Molecular Mechanisms Based on Multiple Simulation Technologies

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

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

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

Interpretation of the Binding Affinities of PTP1B Inhibitors with the MM-GB/SA Method and the X-score Scoring Function.

Assessing the performance of docking, FEP, and MM/GBSA methods on a series of KLK6 inhibitors

Binding free energy of protein/ligand complexes calculated using dissociation Parallel Cascade Selection Molecular Dynamics and Markov state model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of the Multilayer Fragment Molecular Orbital Method to Predict the Rank Order of Protein–Ligand Binding Affinities: A Case Study Using Tankyrase 2 Inhibitors

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

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

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

Binding Free Energy Calculation Based on the Fragment Molecular Orbital Method and Its Application in Designing Novel SHP-2 Allosteric Inhibitors

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