Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 475–487 | Cite as

Blind prediction of host–guest binding affinities: a new SAMPL3 challenge

  • Hari S. Muddana
  • C. Daniel Varnado
  • Christopher W. Bielawski
  • Adam R. Urbach
  • Lyle Isaacs
  • Matthew T. Geballe
  • Michael K. Gilson


The computational prediction of protein–ligand binding affinities is of central interest in early-stage drug-discovery, and there is a widely recognized need for improved methods. Low molecular weight receptors and their ligands—i.e., host–guest systems—represent valuable test-beds for such affinity prediction methods, because their small size makes for fast calculations and relatively facile numerical convergence. The SAMPL3 community exercise included the first ever blind prediction challenge for host–guest binding affinities, through the incorporation of 11 new host–guest complexes. Ten participating research groups addressed this challenge with a variety of approaches. Statistical assessment indicates that, although most methods performed well at predicting some general trends in binding affinity, overall accuracy was not high, as all the methods suffered from either poor correlation or high RMS errors or both. There was no clear advantage in using explicit versus implicit solvent models, any particular force field, or any particular approach to conformational sampling. In a few cases, predictions using very similar energy models but different sampling and/or free-energy methods resulted in significantly different results. The protonation states of one host and some guest molecules emerged as key uncertainties beyond the choice of computational approach. The present results have implications for methods development and future blind prediction exercises.


SAMPL3 Host–guest Binding Blind prediction Free energy 



This work was supported in part by Grants GM61300 from the NIGMS to M.K.G, CHE-1110911 from the NSF to L.I., Robert A. Welch Foundation (F-1621) to C.W.B, and NSF grant CHE-0748483 to A.R.U. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIGMS or the National Institutes of Health. We thank Drs. Emilio Gallicchio, Enrico Purisima and Wei Yang for corrections and suggestions.


  1. 1.
    Kitchen DB, Decornez H, Furr JR, Bajorath J (2004) Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3:935–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gilson MK, Zhou HX (2007) Calculation of protein-ligand binding affinities. Annu Rev Bioph Biom 36:21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gallicchio E, Levy RM (2011) Recent theoretical and computational advances for modeling protein-ligand binding affinities. Adv Protein Chem Str 85:27–80Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Houk KN, Leach AG, Kim SP, Zhang X (2003) Binding affinities of host-guest, protein-ligand, and protein-transition-state complexes. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 42:4872–4897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen W, Chang CE, Gilson MK (2004) Calculation of cyclodextrin binding affinities: energy, entropy, and implications for drug design. Biophys J 87:3035–3049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang CE, Gilson MK (2004) Free energy, entropy, and induced fit in host-guest recognition: calculations with the second-generation mining minima algorithm. J Am Chem Soc 126:13156–13164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu SM, Ruspic C, Mukhopadhyay P, Chakrabarti S, Zavalij PY, Isaacs L (2005) The cucurbit[n]uril family: prime components for self-sorting systems. J Am Chem Soc 127:15959–15967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mock WL (1995) Cucurbituril. Top Curr Chem 175:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mock WL, Shih NY (1983) Host guest binding-capacity of cucurbituril. J Org Chem 48:3618–3619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moghaddam S, Inoue Y, Gilson MK (2009) Host-guest complexes with protein-ligand-like affinities: computational analysis and design. J Am Chem Soc 131:4012–4021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moghaddam S, Yang C, Rekharsky M, Ko YH, Kim K, Inoue Y, Gilson MK (2011) New ultrahigh affinity host-guest complexes of cucurbit[7]uril with bicyclo[2.2.2]octane and adamantane guests: thermodynamic analysis and evaluation of M2 affinity calculations. J Am Chem Soc 133:3570–3581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rekharsky MV, Mori T, Yang C, Ko YH, Selvapalam N, Kim H, Sobransingh D, Kaifer AE, Liu S, Isaacs L et al (2007) A synthetic host-guest system achieves avidin-biotin affinity by overcoming enthalpy-entropy compensation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:20737–20742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee JW, Samal S, Selvapalam N, Kim HJ, Kim K (2003) Cucurbituril homologues and derivatives: new opportunities in supramolecular chemistry. Acc Chem Res 36:621–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim J, Jung IS, Kim SY, Lee E, Kang JK, Sakamoto S, Yamaguchi K, Kim K (2000) New cucurbituril homologues: syntheses, isolation, characterization, and X-ray crystal structures of cucurbit[n]uril (n = 5, 7, and 8). J Am Chem Soc 122:540–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ma D, Zavalij PY, Isaacs L (2010) Acyclic cucurbit[n]uril congeners are high affinity hosts. J Org Chem 75:4786–4795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lagona J, Fettinger JC, Isaacs L (2003) Cucurbit[n]uril analogues. Org Lett 5:3745–3747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Macartney DH (2011) Encapsulation of drug molecules by cucurbiturils: Effects on their chemical properties in aqueous solution. Isr J Chem 51:600–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim K, Selvapalam N, Ko YH, Park KM, Kim D, Kim J (2007) Functionalized cucurbiturils and their applications. Chem Soc Rev 36:267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koner AL, Nau WM (2007) Cucurbituril encapsulation of fluorescent dyes. Supramol Chem 19:55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moult J, Fidelis K, Kryshtafovych A, Tramontano A (2011) Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)-round IX. Proteins 79(Suppl 10):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nielsen JE, Gunner MR, Garcia-Moreno EB (2011) The pK(a) cooperative: a collaborative effort to advance structure-based calculations of pK(a) values and electrostatic effects in proteins. Proteins 79:3249–3259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Geballe MT, Skillman AG, Nicholls A, Guthrie JP, Taylor PJ (2010) The SAMPL2 blind prediction challenge: introduction and overview. J Comput Aided Mol Des 24:259–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Allen FH (2002) The Cambridge structural database: a quarter of a million crystal structures and rising. Acta Crystallogr B 58:380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Biedermann F, Rauwald U, Cziferszky M, Williams KA, Gann LD, Guo BY, Urbach AR, Bielawski CW, Scherman OA (2010) Benzobis(imidazolium)-cucurbit[8]uril complexes for binding and sensing aromatic compounds in aqueous solution. Chemistry 16:13716–13722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lagona J, Mukhopadhyay P, Chakrabarti S, Isaacs L (2005) The cucurbit[n]uril family. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 44:4844–4870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kirkwood JG (1935) Statistical mechanics of fluid mixtures. J Chem Phys 3:300–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Straatsma TP, Mccammon JA (1991) Multiconfiguration thermodynamic integration. J Chem Phys 95:1175–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bennett CH (1976) Efficient estimation of free-energy differences from Monte-Carlo data. J Comput Phys 22:245–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang F, Landau DP (2001) Efficient, multiple-range random walk algorithm to calculate the density of states. Phys Rev Lett 86:2050–2053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gallicchio E, Lapelosa M, Levy RM (2010) The binding energy distribution analysis method (BEDAM) for the estimation of protein-ligand binding affinities. J Chem Theory Comput 6:2961–2977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zheng L, Chen M, Yang W (2008) Random walk in orthogonal space to achieve efficient free-energy simulation of complex systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:20227–20232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Srinivasan J, Cheatham TE, Cieplak P, Kollman PA, Case DA (1998) Continuum solvent studies of the stability of DNA, RNA, and phosphoramidate—DNA helices. J Am Chem Soc 120:9401–9409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Naim M, Bhat S, Rankin KN, Dennis S, Chowdhury SF, Siddiqi I, Drabik P, Sulea T, Bayly CI, Jakalian A et al (2007) Solvated interaction energy (SIE) for scoring protein-ligand binding affinities. 1. Exploring the parameter space. J Chem Inf Model 47:122–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chang CE, Gilson MK (2004) Free energy, entropy, and induced fit in host-guest recognition: Calculations with the second-generation mining minima algorithm. J Am Chem Soc 126:13156–13164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Head MS, Given JA, Gilson MK (1997) ‘‘Mining minima’’: direct computation of conformational free energy. J Phys Chem A 101:1609–1618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jorgensen WL, Maxwell DS, TiradoRives J (1996) Development 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
  37. 37.
    Kaminski GA, Friesner RA, Tirado-Rives J, Jorgensen WL (2001) Evaluation and reparametrization 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
  38. 38.
    Wang JM, Wolf RM, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA, Case DA (2004) Development and testing of a general amber force field. J Comput Chem 25:1157–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Halgren TA (1996) Merck molecular force field.1. Basis, form, scope, parameterization, and performance of MMFF94. J Comput Chem 17:490–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Momany FA, Rone R (1992) Validation of the general-purpose Quanta(R)3.2/Charmm(R) force-field. J Comput Chem 13:888–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vanommeslaeghe K, Hatcher E, Acharya C, Kundu S, Zhong S, Shim J, Darian E, Guvench O, Lopes P, Vorobyov I et al (2010) CHARMM general force field: a force field for drug-like molecules compatible with the CHARMM all-atom additive biological force fields. J Comput Chem 31:671–690Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gilson MK, Gilson HSR, Potter MJ (2003) Fast assignment of accurate partial atomic charges: an electronegativity equalization method that accounts for alternate resonance forms. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 43:1982–1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Banks JL, Beard HS, Cao YX, Cho AE, Damm W, Farid R, Felts AK, Halgren TA, Mainz DT, Maple JR et al (2005) Integrated modeling program, applied chemical theory (IMPACT). J Comput Chem 26:1752–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bayly CI, Cieplak P, Cornell WD, Kollman PA (1993) A well-behaved electrostatic potential based method using charge restraints for deriving atomic charges—the resp model. J Phys Chem Us 97:10269–10280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jakalian A, Bush BL, Jack DB, Bayly CI (2000) Fast, efficient generation of high-quality atomic charges. AM1-BCC model: I. Method. J Comput Chem 21:132–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jakalian A, Jack DB, Bayly CI (2002) Fast, efficient generation of high-quality atomic charges. AM1-BCC model: II. Parameterization and validation. J Comput Chem 23:1623–1641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hohenberg P, Kohn W (1964) Inhomogeneous electron gas. Phys Rev B 136, B864Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kohn W, Sham LJ (1965) Self-consistent equations including exchange and correlation effects. Phys Rev 140:1133Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Becke AD (1988) Density-functional exchange-energy approximation with correct asymptotic-behavior. Phys Rev A 38:3098–3100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lee CT, Yang WT, Parr RG (1988) Development of the Colle-Salvetti correlation-energy formula into a functional of the electron-density. Phys Rev B 37:785–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sitkoff D, Sharp KA, Honig B (1994) Accurate calculation of hydration free-energies using macroscopic solvent models. J Phys Chem Us 98:1978–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Qiu D, Shenkin PS, Hollinger FP, Still WC (1997) The GB/SA continuum model for solvation. A fast analytical method for the calculation of approximate Born radii. J Phys Chem A 101:3005–3014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Cances E, Mennucci B, Tomasi J (1997) A new integral equation formalism for the polarizable continuum model: theoretical background and applications to isotropic and anisotropic dielectrics. J Chem Phys 107:3032–3041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Corbeil CR, Sulea T, Purisima EO (2010) Rapid prediction of solvation free energy. 2. The first-shell hydration (FiSH) continuum model. J Chem Theory Comput 6:1622–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gallicchio E, Paris K, Levy RM (2009) The AGBNP2 implicit solvation model. J Chem Theory Comput 5:2544–2564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    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
  57. 57.
    Jorgensen WL, Chandrasekhar J, Madura JD, Impey RW, Klein ML (1983) Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J Chem Phys 79:926–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chang CE, Gilson MK (2003) Tork: conformational analysis method for molecules and complexes. J Comput Chem 24:1987–1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    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
  60. 60.
    Wang RB, Yuan L, Macartney DH (2005) A green to blue fluorescence switch of protonated 2-aminoanthracene upon inclusion in cucurbit[7]uril. Chem Commun 5867–5869Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wyman IW, Macartney DH (2010) Host-guest complexations of local anaesthetics by cucurbit[7]uril in aqueous solution. Org Biomol Chem 8:247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bate P, Warwicker J (2004) Enzyme/non-enzyme discrimination and prediction of enzyme active site location using charge-based methods. J Mol Biol 340:263–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bartlett GJ, Porter CT, Borkakoti N, Thornton JM (2002) Analysis of catalytic residues in enzyme active sites. J Mol Biol 324:105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wyman J (1965) Binding potential a neglected linkage concept. J Mol Biol 11:631Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Schellman JA (1975) Macromolecular binding. Biopolymers 14:999–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bashford D (2004) Macroscopic electrostatic models for protonation states in proteins. Front Biosci J Virtual Library 9:1082–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gunner MR, Mao J, Song Y, Kim J (2006) Factors influencing the energetics of electron and proton transfers in proteins. What can be learned from calculations. Biochim Biophys Acta 1757:942–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Garcia-Moreno EB, Fitch CA (2004) Structural interpretation of pH and salt-dependent processes in proteins with computational methods. Methods Enzymol 380:20–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Goerigk L, Grimme S (2010) A general database for main group thermochemistry, kinetics, and noncovalent interactions—assessment of common and reparameterized (meta-)GGA density functionals. J Chem Theory Comput 6:107–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zhao Y, Truhlar DG (2008) Density functionals with broad applicability in chemistry. Acc Chem Res 41:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Rezac J, Riley KE, Hobza P (2011) S66: a well-balanced database of benchmark interaction energies relevant to biomolecular structures. J Chem Theory Comput 7:2427–2438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Berka K, Laskowski R, Riley KE, Hobza P, Vondrasek J (2009) Representative amino acid side chain interactions in proteins. A comparison of highly accurate correlated ab Initio quantum chemical and empirical potential procedures. J Chem Theory Comput 5:982–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Jurecka P, Sponer J, Cerny J, Hobza P (2006) Benchmark database of accurate (MP2 and CCSD(T) complete basis set limit) interaction energies of small model complexes, DNA base pairs, and amino acid pairs. Phys Chem Chem Phys 8:1985–1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Goerigk L, Grimme S (2011) Efficient and accurate Double-Hybrid-Meta-GGA density functionals-evaluation with the extended GMTKN30 database for general main group thermochemistry, kinetics, and noncovalent Interactions. J Chem Theory Comput 7:291–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Paton RS, Goodman JM (2009) Hydrogen bonding and pi-stacking: how reliable are force fields? A critical evaluation of force field descriptions of nonbonded interactions. J Chem Inf Model 49:944–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Duan Y, Wu C, Chowdhury S, Lee MC, Xiong GM, Zhang W, Yang R, Cieplak P, Luo R, Lee T et al (2003) A point-charge force field for molecular mechanics simulations of proteins based on condensed-phase quantum mechanical calculations. J Comput Chem 24:1999–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Mihailescu M, Gilson MK (2004) On the theory of noncovalent binding. Biophys J 87:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Dunbar JB, Smith RD, Yang CY, Ung PMU, Lexa KW, Khazanov NA, Stuckey JA, Wang SM, Carlson HA (2011) CSAR benchmark exercise of 2010: selection of the protein-ligand complexes. J Chem Inf Model 51:2036–2046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Smith RD, Dunbar JB, Ung PMU, Esposito EX, Yang CY, Wang SM, Carlson HA (2011) CSAR benchmark exercise of 2010: combined evaluation across all submitted scoring functions. J Chem Inf Model 51:2115–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hari S. Muddana
    • 1
  • C. Daniel Varnado
    • 2
  • Christopher W. Bielawski
    • 2
  • Adam R. Urbach
    • 3
  • Lyle Isaacs
    • 4
  • Matthew T. Geballe
    • 5
  • Michael K. Gilson
    • 1
  1. 1.Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of California San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Chemistry and BiochemistryThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryTrinity UniversitySan AntonioUSA
  4. 4.Department of Chemistry and BiochemistryUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  5. 5.OpenEye Scientific Software, Inc.Santa FeUSA

Personalised recommendations