Abstract:Implicit solvent methods for classical molecular modeling are frequently used to provide fast, physics-based hydration free energies of macromolecules. Less commonly considered is the transferability of these methods to other solvents. The Statistical Assessment of Modeling of Proteins and Ligands 5 (SAMPL5) distribution coefficient dataset and the accompanying explicit solvent partition coefficient reference calculations provide a direct test of solvent model transferability. Here we use the 3D reference interaction site model (3D-RISM) statistical-mechanical solvation theory, with a well tested water model and a new united atom cyclohexane model, to calculate partition coefficients for the SAMPL5 dataset. The cyclohexane model performed well in training and testing (R=0.98\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$R=0.98$$\end{document} for amino acid neutral side chain analogues) but only if a parameterized solvation free energy correction was used. In contrast, the same protocol, using single solute conformations, performed poorly on the SAMPL5 dataset, obtaining R=0.73\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$R=0.73$$\end{document} compared to the reference partition coefficients, likely due to the much larger solute sizes. Including solute conformational sampling through molecular dynamics coupled with 3D-RISM (MD/3D-RISM) improved agreement with the reference calculation to R=0.93\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$R=0.93$$\end{document}. Since our initial calculations only considered partition coefficients and not distribution coefficients, solute sampling provided little benefit comparing against experiment, where ionized and tautomer states are more important. Applying a simple pKa\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\hbox {p}K_{\text {a}}$$\end{document} correction improved agreement with experiment from R=0.54\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$R=0.54$$\end{document} to R=0.66\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$R=0.66$$\end{document}, despite a small number of outliers. Better agreement is possible by accounting for tautomers and improving the ionization correction.

SAMPL7 physical property prediction from EC-RISM theory

The SAMPL6 challenge on predicting octanol–water partition coefficients from EC-RISM theory

Evaluation of log P, pKa, and log D predictions from the SAMPL7 blind challenge

The SAMPL6 challenge on predicting aqueous pKa values from EC-RISM theory

Octanol–water partition coefficient measurements for the SAMPL6 blind prediction challenge

Developing the QSPR Model for Predicting the Storage Lipid/water Distribution Coefficient of Organic Compounds

SAMPL5: 3D-RISM partition coefficient calculations with partial molar volume corrections and solute conformational sampling

Expanded ensemble predictions of toluene--water partition coefficients in the SAMPL9 LogP challenge

A comparison of molecular representations for lipophilicity quantitative structure–property relationships with results from the SAMPL6 logP Prediction Challenge

Integrating Multiscale and Machine Learning Approaches towards the SAMPL9 LogP Challenge

Overview of the SAMPL6 pKa challenge: evaluating small molecule microscopic and macroscopic pKa predictions

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

SAMPL9 blind predictions using nonequilibrium alchemical approaches

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

Prediction of hydration free energies for the SAMPL4 diverse set of compounds using molecular dynamics simulations with the OPLS-AA force field

Application of Molecular Dynamics Simulations in Molecular Property Prediction II: Diffusion Coefficient.

Systematic Modeling of logD 7.4 Based on Ensemble Machine Learning, Group Contribution and Matched Molecular Pair Analysis.

Understanding the language of molecules: Predicting pure component parameters for the PC-SAFT equation of state from SMILES

LogD7.4 prediction enhanced by transferring knowledge from chromatographic retention time, microscopic pKa and logP

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

Prediction of hydration free energies for the SAMPL4 data set with the AMOEBA polarizable force field