Abstract:End-point free energy calculations as a powerful tool have been widely applied in protein–ligand and protein–protein interactions. It is often recognized that these end-point techniques serve as an option of intermediate accuracy and computational cost compared with more rigorous statistical mechanic models (e.g., alchemical transformation) and coarser molecular docking. However, it is observed that this intermediate level of accuracy does not hold in relatively simple and prototypical host–guest systems. Specifically, in our previous work investigating a set of carboxylated-pillar[6]arene host–guest complexes, end-point methods provide free energy estimates deviating significantly from the experimental reference, and the rank of binding affinities is also incorrectly computed. These observations suggest the unsuitability and inapplicability of standard end-point free energy techniques in host–guest systems, and alteration and development are required to make them practically usable. In this work, we consider two ways to improve the performance of end-point techniques. The first one is the PBSA_E regression that varies the weights of different free energy terms in the end-point calculation procedure, while the second one is considering the interior dielectric constant as an additional variable in the end-point equation. By detailed investigation of the calculation procedure and the simulation outcome, we prove that these two treatments (i.e., regression and dielectric constant) are manipulating the end-point equation in a somehow similar way, i.e., weakening the electrostatic contribution and strengthening the non-polar terms, although there are still many detailed differences between these two methods. With the trained end-point scheme, the RMSE of the computed affinities is improved from the standard ~ 12 kcal/mol to ~ 2.4 kcal/mol, which is comparable to another altered end-point method (ELIE) trained with system-specific data. By tuning PBSA_E weighting factors with the host-specific data, it is possible to further decrease the prediction error to ~ 2.1 kcal/mol. These observations along with the extremely efficient optimized-structure computation procedure suggest the regression (i.e., PBSA_E as well as its GBSA_E extension) as a practically applicable solution that brings end-point methods back into the library of usable tools for host–guest binding. However, the dielectric-constant-variable scheme cannot effectively minimize the experiment-calculation discrepancy for absolute binding affinities, but is able to improve the calculation of affinity ranks. This phenomenon is somehow different from the protein–ligand case and suggests the difference between host–guest and biomacromolecular (protein–ligand and protein–protein) systems. Therefore, the spectrum of tools usable for protein–ligand complexes could be unsuitable for host–guest binding, and numerical validations are necessary to screen out really workable solutions in these 'prototypical' situations.

The Thermodynamics of Guest Complexation to Octa-Acid and Tetra-Endo-methyl Octa-Acid: Reference Data for the Sixth Statistical Assessment of Modeling of Proteins and Ligands (SAMPL6)

SAMPL7: Host–guest binding prediction by molecular dynamics and quantum mechanics

Free-energy perturbation and quantum mechanical study of SAMPL4 octa-acid host–guest binding energies

Overview of the SAMPL6 host–guest binding affinity prediction challenge

Overview of the SAMPL5 host–guest challenge: Are we doing better?

Binding Thermodynamics and Kinetics Calculations Using Chemical Host and Guest: A Comprehensive Picture of Molecular Recognition

Biomolecular conformational changes and ligand binding: from kinetics to thermodynamics.

Untangling the Diverse Interior and Multiple Exterior Guest Interactions of a Supramolecular Host by the Simultaneous Analysis of Complementary Observables

SAMPL9 blind predictions using nonequilibrium alchemical approaches

The temperature-dependence of host-guest binding thermodynamics: experimental and simulation studies

The SAMPL6 SAMPLing challenge: assessing the reliability and efficiency of binding free energy calculations

The SAMPL9 Host-Guest Blind Challenge: An Overview of Binding Free Energy Predictive Accuracy

Taming Multiple Binding Poses in Alchemical Binding Free Energy Prediction: the $β$-cyclodextrin Host-Guest SAMPL9 Blinded Challenge

Tuning Potential Functions to Host–Guest Binding Data

Comprehensive evaluation of end-point free energy techniques in carboxylated-pillar[6]arene host–guest binding: II. regression and dielectric constant

Rigorous Free Energy Perturbation Approach to Estimating Relative Binding Affinities Between Ligands with Multiple Protonation and Tautomeric States.

Comprehensive Evaluation of End-Point Free Energy Techniques in Carboxylated-Pillar[6]arene Host–Guest Binding: III. Force-Field Comparison, Three-Trajectory Realization and Further Dielectric Augmentation

Comprehensive evaluation of end-point free energy techniques in carboxylated-pillar[6]arene host–guest binding: I. Standard procedure

Calculating Binding Free Energies in Model Host-Guest Systems with Unrestrained Advanced Sampling

Host-Guest binding free energies à la carte: an automated OneOPES protocol