Published in

American Chemical Society, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 3(10), p. 1314-1325, 2014

DOI: 10.1021/ct400995c

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Bringing Clarity to the Prediction of Protein–Ligand Binding Free Energies via “Blurring”

Journal article published in 2014 by Melek N. Ucisik, Zheng Zheng ORCID, John C. Faver, Kenneth M. Merz
This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
  • Must obtain written permission from Editor
  • Must not violate ACS ethical Guidelines
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
  • Must obtain written permission from Editor
  • Must not violate ACS ethical Guidelines
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

We present a method to evaluate the free energies of ligand binding utilizing a Monte Carlo estimation of the configuration integrals concomitant with uncertainty quantification. Ensembles for integration are built through systematically perturbing an initial ligand conformation in a rigid binding pocket, which is optimized separately prior to incorporation of the ligand. We call the procedure producing the ensembles "blurring", and it is carried out using an in-house developed code. The Boltzmann factor contribution of each pose to the configuration integral is computed and from there the free energy is obtained. Potential function uncertainties are estimated using a fragment-based error propagation method. This method has been applied to a set of small aromatic ligands complexed with T4 Lysozyme L99A mutant. Microstate energies have been determined with the force fields ff99SB and ff94, and the semiempirical method PM6DH2 in conjunction with continuum solvation models including Generalized Born (GB), the Conductor-like Screening Model (COSMO), and SMD. Of the methods studied, PM6DH2-based scoring gave binding free energy estimates, which yielded a good correlation to the experimental binding affinities (R (2) = 0.7). All methods overestimated the calculated binding affinities. We trace this to insufficient sampling, the single static protein structure, and inaccuracies in the solvent models we have used in this study.