Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 505–516 | Cite as

Prediction of SAMPL3 host-guest affinities with the binding energy distribution analysis method (BEDAM)

Article

Abstract

BEDAM calculations are described to predict the free energies of binding of a series of anaesthetic drugs to a recently characterized acyclic cucurbituril host. The modeling predictions, conducted as part of the SAMPL3 host-guest affinity blind challenge, are generally in good quantitative agreement with the experimental measurements. The correlation coefficient between computed and measured binding free energies is 70% with high statistical significance. Multiple conformational stereoisomers and protonation states of the guests have been considered. Better agreement is obtained with high statistical confidence under acidic modeling conditions. It is shown that this level of quantitative agreement could have not been reached without taking into account reorganization energy and configurational entropy effects. Extensive conformational variability of the host, the guests and their complexes is observed in the simulations, affecting binding free energy estimates and structural predictions. A conformational reservoir technique is introduced as part of the parallel Hamiltonian replica exchange molecular dynamics BEDAM protocol to fully capture conformational variability. It is shown that these advanced computational strategies lead to converged free energy estimates for these systems, offering the prospect of utilizing host-guest binding free energy data for force field validation and development.

Keywords

BEDAM AGBNP Binding free energy Host-guest SAMPL3 Replica exchange 

References

  1. 1.
    Gilson MK, Given JA, Bush BL, McCammon JA (1997) The statistical-thermodynamic basis for computation of binding affinities: a critical review. Biophys J 72:1047–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gallicchio E, Levy RM (2011) Recent theoretical and computational advances for modeling protein–ligand binding affinities. In: Advances in protein chemistry and structural biology, vol 85. Academic Press, London, pp 27–80Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gilson MK, Zhou H-X (2007) Calculation of protein-ligand binding affinities. Ann Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 36:21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shirts MR, Mobley DL, Chodera JD (2007) Alchemical free energy calculations: ready for prime time? Ann Rep Comput Chem 3:41–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mobley DL, Dill KA (2009) Binding of small-molecule ligands to proteins: “what you see” is not always “what you get”. Structure 17(4):489–498Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deng Y, Roux B (2009) Computations of standard binding free energies with molecular dynamics simulations. J Phys Chem B 113(8):2234–2246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chodera JD, Mobley DL, Shirts MR, Dixon RW, Branson K, Pande VS (2011) Alchemical free energy methods for drug discovery: progress and challenges. Curr Opin Struct Biol 21:150–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jorgensen WL (2004) The many roles of computation in drug discovery. Science 303(5665):1813–1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shirts MR, Mobley DL, Brown SP (2010) Free energy calculations in structure-based drug design. In: Structure based drug discovery. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chipot C, Pohorille A (eds) (2007) Free energy calculations. Theory and applications in chemistry and biology. Springer Series in Chemical Physics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Head MS, Given JA, Gilson MK (1997) Mining minima: direct computation of conformational free energy. J Phys Chem A 101(8):1609–1618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang CA, Chen W, Gilson MK (2007) Ligand configurational entropy and protein binding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(5):1534–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moghaddam S, Yang C, Rekharsky M, Ko YH, Kim K, Inoue Y, Gilson MK (2011) New ultrahigh affinity host-guest complexes of cucurbit7. uril with bicyclo[2.2.2]octane and adamantane guests: thermodynamic analysis and evaluation of M2 affinity calculations. J Am Chem Soc 133(10):3570–3581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallicchio E, Lapelosa M, Levy RM (2010) Binding energy distribution analysis method (BEDAM) for estimation of protein-ligand binding affinities. J Chem Theory Comput 6(9):2961–2977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lapelosa M, Gallicchio E, Levy RM (2012) Conformational transitions and convergence of absolute binding free energy calculations. J Chem Theory Comput 8:47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gallicchio E, Levy RM (2004) AGBNP: an analytic implicit solvent model suitable for molecular dynamics simulations and high-resolution modeling. J Comput Chem 25:479–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gallicchio E, Paris K, Levy RM (2009) The AGBNP2 implicit solvation model. J Chem Theory Comput 5(9):2544–2564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wyman IW, Macartney DH (2010) Host-guest complexations of local anaesthetics by cucurbit7. uril in aqueous solution. Org Biomol Chem 8(1):247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ma D, Zavalij PY, Isaacs L (2010) Acyclic cucurbit[n]uril congeners are high affinity hosts. J Org Chem 75(14):4786–4795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Muddana HS, Varnado CD, Bielawski CW, Urbach AR, Isaacs L, Geballe MT, Gilson M (2012) Blind prediction of host-guest binding affinities: a new SAMPL3 challenge. J Comp Aided Mol Design (in press)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gallicchio E, Levy RM (2011) Advances in all atom sampling methods for modeling protein-ligand binding affinities. Curr Opin Struct Biol 21(2):161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gallicchio E, Andrec M, Felts AK, Levy RM (2005) Temperature weighted histogram analysis method, replica exchange, and transition paths. J Phys Chem B 109:6722–6731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shirts MR, Chodera JD (2008) Statistically optimal analysis of samples from multiple equilibrium states. J Chem Phys 129(12):124105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moult J, Fidelis K, Kryshtafovych A, Rost B, Tramontano A (2009) Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction—round viii. Proteins 77(Suppl 9):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guthrie JP (2009) A blind challenge for computational solvation free energies: introduction and overview. J Phys Chem B 113(14):4501–4507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nielsen JE, Gunner MR, Bertrand García-Moreno E (2011) The pka cooperative: A collaborative effort to advance structure-based calculations of pka values and electrostatic effects in proteins. Proteins 79(12):3249–3259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wodak SJ (2007) From the mediterranean coast to the shores of lake ontario: Capri’s premiere on the american continent. Proteins 69(4):697–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boyce SE, Mobley DL, Rocklin GJ, Graves AP, Dill KA, Shoichet BK (2009) Predicting ligand binding affinity with alchemical free energy methods in a polar model binding site. J Mol Biol 394(4):747–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hagen M, Kim B, Liu P, Berne BJ (2006) Serial replica exchange. J Phys Chem B 111:1416–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roitberg AE, Okur A, Simmerling C (2007) Coupling of replica exchange simulations to a non-boltzmann structure reservoir. J Phys Chem B 111(10):2415–2418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Okumura H, Gallicchio E, Levy RM (2010) Conformational populations of ligand-sized molecules by replica exchange molecular dynamics and temperature reweighting. J Comput Chem 31:1357–1367Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gallicchio E, Levy RM, Parashar M (2008) Asynchronous replica exchange for molecular simulations. J Comput Chem 29(5):788–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jorgensen WL, Maxwell DS, Tirado-Rives J (1996) Developement and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids. J Am Chem Soc 118:11225–11236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kaminski GA, Friesner RA, Tirado-Rives J, Jorgensen WL (2001) Evaluation and reparameterization of the OPLS-AA force field for proteins via comparison with accurate quantum chemical calculations on peptides. J Phys Chem B 105:6474–6487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nguyen C, Gilson MK, Young T (2011) Structure and thermodynamics of molecular hydration via grid inhomogeneous solvation theory. arXiv:1108.4876v1 [q-bio.BM]Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Banks JL, Beard JS, Cao Y, Cho AE, Damm W, Farid R, Felts AK, Halgren TA, Mainz DT, Maple JR, Murphy R, Philipp DM, Repasky MP, Zhang LY, Berne BJ, Friesner RA, Gallicchio E, Levy RM (2005) Integrated modeling program, applied chemical theory (IMPACT). J Comp Chem 26:1752–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pohorille A, Jarzynski C, Chipot C (2010) Good practices in free-energy calculations. J Phys Chem B 114(32):10235–10253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zheng W, Andrec M, Gallicchio E, Levy RM (2008) Simple continuous and discrete models for simulating replica exchange simulations of protein folding. J Phys Chem B 112(19):6083–6093CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BioMaPS Institute for Quantitative Biology and Department of Chemistry and Chemical BiologyRutgers the State University of New JerseyPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations