Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 315–325 | Cite as

BEDAM binding free energy predictions for the SAMPL4 octa-acid host challenge

  • Emilio GallicchioEmail author
  • Haoyuan Chen
  • He Chen
  • Michael Fitzgerald
  • Yang Gao
  • Peng He
  • Malathi Kalyanikar
  • Chuan Kao
  • Beidi Lu
  • Yijie Niu
  • Manasi Pethe
  • Jie Zhu
  • Ronald M. Levy


The binding energy distribution analysis method (BEDAM) protocol has been employed as part of the SAMPL4 blind challenge to predict the binding free energies of a set of octa-acid host–guest complexes. The resulting predictions were consistently judged as some of the most accurate predictions in this category of the SAMPL4 challenge in terms of quantitative accuracy and statistical correlation relative to the experimental values, which were not known at the time the predictions were made. The work has been conducted as part of a hands-on graduate class laboratory session. Collectively the students, aided by automated setup and analysis tools, performed the bulk of the calculations and the numerical and structural analysis. The success of the experiment confirms the reliability of the BEDAM methodology and it shows that physics-based atomistic binding free energy estimation models, when properly streamlined and automated, can be successfully employed by non-specialists.


Binding energy distribution analysis method Implicit solvation Analytic generalized Born plus non-polar model Blind prediction 



This work has been supported in part by research grants from the National Institute of Health (GM30580) and the National Science Foundation Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation Award (CHE-1125332). The calculations reported in this work have been performed at the BioMaPS High Performance Computing Center at Rutgers University funded in part by the NIH shared instrumentation Grants No. 1 S10 RR022375. We gratefully acknowledge Lauren Wickstrom for helpful discussion during the preparation of the manuscript.

Supplementary material (47 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (zip 47 KB)


  1. 1.
    Kluwer AM, Kapre R, Hartl F, Lutz M, Spek AL, Brouwer AM, Van Leeuwen PWNM, Reek JNH (2009) Self-assembled biomimetic [2Fe2S]-hydrogenase-based photocatalyst for molecular hydrogen evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(26):10460–10465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jorgensen WL (2004) The many roles of computation in drug discovery. Science 303:1813–1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodsell DS, Morris GM, Olson AJ (1996) Automated docking of flexible ligands. J Mol Recognit 9:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shoichet BK, McGovern SL, Wei B, Irwin JJ (2002) Lead discovery using molecular docking. Curr Opin Chem Biol 6:439–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhou Z, Felts AK, Friesner RA, Levy RM (2007) Comparative performance of several flexible docking programs and scoring functions: enrichment studies for a diverse set of pharmaceutically relevant targets. J Chem Inf Model 47:1599–1608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perryman AL, Santiago DN, Forli S, Santos-Martins D, Olson AJ (2014) Virtual screening with autodock vina and the common pharmacophore engine of a low diversity library of fragments and hits against the three allosteric sites of hiv integrase: participation in the SAMPL4 protein–ligand binding challenge. J Comp Aided Mol Des 28:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, Halgren TA, Klicic JJ, Mainz DT, Repasky MP, Knoll EH, Shelley M, Perry JK et al (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 47(7):1739–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, Sanner MF, Belew RK, Goodsell DS, Olson AJ (2009) Autodock4 and autodocktools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comp Chem 30:2785–2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown SP, Muchmore SW (2009) Large-scale application of high-throughput molecular mechanics with Poisson–Boltzmann surface area for routine physics-based scoring of protein–ligand complexes. J Med Chem 52:3159–3165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Repasky MP, Murphy RB, Banks JL, Greenwood JR, Tubert-Brohman I, Bhat S, Friesner RA (2012) Docking performance of the Glide program as evaluated on the Astex and DUD datasets: a complete set of Glide SP results and selected results for a new scoring function integrating WaterMap and glide. J Comp Aided Mol Des 26:787–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Boresch S, Tettinger F, Leitgeb M, Karplus M (2003) Absolute binding free energies: a quantitative approach for their calculation. J Phys Chem B 107:9535–9551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mobley DL, Dill KA (2009) Binding of small-molecule ligands to proteins: “what you see” is not always “what you get”. Structure 17:489–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallicchio E, Levy RM (2011) Recent theoretical and computational advances for modeling protein–ligand binding affinities. Adv Protein Chem Struct Biol 85:27–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gallicchio E, Levy RM (2011) Advances in all atom sampling methods for modeling protein–ligand binding affinities. Curr Opin Struct Biol 21:161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang L, Berne BJ, Friesner RA (2012) On achieving high accuracy and reliability in the calculation of relative protein–ligand binding affinities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:1937–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mobley DL, Klimovich PV (2012) Perspective: alchemical free energy calculations for drug discovery. J Chem Phys 137:230901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Velez-Vega C, Gilson MK (2013) Overcoming dissipation in the calculation of standard binding free energies by ligand extraction. J Comp Chem 34(27):2360–2371Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shirts MR, Mobley DL, Brown SP (2010) Free energy calculations in structure-based drug design. In: Structure based drug discovery. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 61–89Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    Mobley DL (2012) Lets get honest about sampling. J Comp Aided Mol Des 26:93–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Geballe MT, Skillman AG, Nicholls A, Guthrie JP, Taylor PJ (2010) The SAMPL2 blind prediction challenge: introduction and overview. J Comp Aided Mol Des 24(4):259–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Muddana HS, Varnado CD, Bielawski CW, Urbach AR, Isaacs L, Geballe MT, Gilson MK (2012) Blind prediction of host–guest binding affinities: a new SAMPL3 challenge. J Comp Aided Mol Des 26(5):475–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mobley DL, Liu S, Lim NM, Wymer KL, Perryman AL, Forli S, Deng N, Su J, Branson K, Olson AJ (2014) Blind prediction of HIV integrase binding from the SAMPL4 challenge. J Comp Aided Mol Des 28:327–345Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dunbar JB Jr, Smith RD, Damm-Ganamet KL, Ahmed A, Esposito EX, Delproposto J, Chinnaswamy K, Kang Y-N, Kubish G, Gestwicki JE et al (2013) CSAR data set release 2012: ligands, affinities, complexes, and docking decoys. J Chem Inf Model 53(8):1842–1852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peat TS, Dolezal O, Newman J, Mobley D, Deadman JJ (2014) Interrogating HIV integrase for compounds that bind—a SAMPL challenge. J Comp Aided Mol Des 28:347–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gallicchio E, Deng N, He P, Perryman AL, Santiago DN, Forli S, Olson AJ, Levy RM (2014) Virtual screening of integrase inhibitors by large scale binding free energy calculations: the SAMPL4 challenge. J Comp Aided Mol Des 28:475–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu S, Wu Y, Lin T, Abel R, Redmann JP, Summa CM, Jaber VR, Lim NM, Mobley DL (2013) Lead optimization mapper: automating free energy calculations for lead optimization. J Comp Aided Mol Des 27(9):755–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gallicchio E, Lapelosa M, Levy RM (2010) Binding energy distribution analysis method (BEDAM) for estimation of protein–ligand binding affinities. J Chem Theory Comput 6:2961–2977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tan Z, Gallicchio E, Lapelosa M, Levy RM (2012) Theory of binless multi-state free energy estimation with applications to protein–ligand binding. J Chem Phys 136:144102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gibb CLD, Gibb BC (2014) Binding of cyclic carboxylates to octa-acid deep-cavity cavitand. J Comp Aided Mol Des 28:319–325Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Muddana HS, Fenley AT, Mobley DL, Gilson MK (2014) The SAMPL4 host–guest blind prediction challenge: an overview. J Comp Aided Mol Des 28:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gallicchio E (2012) Role of ligand reorganization and conformational restraints on the binding free energies of DAPY non-nucleoside inhibitors to HIV reverse transcriptase. Mol Biosci 2:7–22Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wickstrom L, He P, Gallicchio E, Levy RM (2013) Large scale affinity calculations of cyclodextrin host–guest complexes: understanding the role of reorganization in the molecular recognition process. J Chem Theory Comput 9:3136–3150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gallicchio E, Levy RM (2012) Prediction of SAMPL3 host–guest affinities with the binding energy distribution analysis method (BEDAM). J Comp Aided Mol Des 25:505–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sun H, Gibb CLD, Gibb BC (2008) Calorimetric analysis of the 1:1 complexes formed between a water-soluble deep-cavity cavitand, and cyclic and acyclic carboxylic acids. Supramol Chem 20(1–2):141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    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
  40. 40.
    Gallicchio E, Paris K, Levy RM (2009) The AGBNP2 implicit solvation model. J Chem Theory Comput 5:2544–2564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shirts MR, Chodera JD (2008) Statistically optimal analysis of samples from multiple equilibrium states. J Chem Phys 129:124105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tan Z, Gallicchio E, Lapelosa M, Levy RM (2012) Theory of binless multi-state free energy estimation with applications to protein–ligand binding. J Chem Phys 136:144102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    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
  44. 44.
    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
  45. 45.
    Qiu D, Shenkin PS, Hollinger FP, Still CW (1997) The GB/SA continuum model for solvation. A fast analystical method for the calculation of approximate born radii. J Phys Chem A 101:3005–3014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    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
  47. 47.
    Levy RM, Zhang LY, Gallicchio E, Felts AK (2003) On the nonpolar hydration free energy of proteins: surface area and continuum solvent models for the solute–solvent interaction energy. J Am Chem Soc 125:9523–9530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Su Y, Gallicchio E (2004) The non-polar solvent potential of mean force for the dimerization of alanine dipeptide: the role of solute–solvent van der waals interactions. Biophys Chem 109:251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Young T, Abel R, Kim B, Berne BJ, Friesner RA (2007) Motifs for molecular recognition exploiting hydrophobic enclosure in protein–ligand binding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:808–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nguyen CN, Young TK, Gilson MK (2012) Grid inhomogeneous solvation theory: hydration structure and thermodynamics of the miniature receptor cucurbit [7] uril. J Chem Phys 137(4):044101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ewell J, Gibb BC, Rick SW (2008) Water inside a hydrophobic cavitand molecule. J Phys Chem B 112(33):10272–10279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mikulskis P, Cioloboc D, Andrejić M, Khare S, Brorsson J, Genheden S, Mata RA, Söderhjelm P, Ryde U (2014) Free-energy perturbation and quantum mechanical study of SAMPL4 octa-acid host–guest binding energies. J Comp Aided Mol Des 28:375–400Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hogues H, Sulea T, Purisima EO (2014) Exhaustive docking and solvated interaction energy scoring: lessons learned from the SAMPL4 challenge. J Comp Aided Mol Des 28:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Coleman RG, Sterling T, Weiss DR (2014) SAMPL4 & DOCK3.7: lessons for automated docking procedures. J Comput Aided Mol Des 28(3):201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Muddana HS, Yin J, Sapra NV, Fenley AT, Gilson MK (2014) Blind prediction of SAMPL4 cucurbit[7]uril binding affinities with the mining minima method. J Comp Aided Mol Des 28:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Beuming T, Che Y, Abel R, Kim B, Shanmugasundaram V, Sherman W (2012) Thermodynamic analysis of water molecules at the surface of proteins and applications to binding site prediction and characterization. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinf 80(3):871–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Giovambattista N, Rossky PJ, Debenedetti PG (2006) Effect of pressure on the phase behavior and structure of water confined between nanoscale hydrophobic and hydrophilic plates. Phys Rev E 73(4):041604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wang L, Friesner RA, Berne BJ (2010) Hydrophobic interactions in model enclosures from small to large length scales. Faraday Discuss 146:247–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emilio Gallicchio
    • 1
    Email author
  • Haoyuan Chen
    • 2
  • He Chen
    • 2
  • Michael Fitzgerald
    • 2
  • Yang Gao
    • 2
  • Peng He
    • 3
    • 4
  • Malathi Kalyanikar
    • 2
  • Chuan Kao
    • 2
  • Beidi Lu
    • 2
  • Yijie Niu
    • 2
  • Manasi Pethe
    • 2
  • Jie Zhu
    • 2
  • Ronald M. Levy
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryCUNY Brooklyn CollegeBrooklynUSA
  2. 2.Department of Chemistry and Chemical BiologyRutgers the State University of New JerseyPiscatawayUSA
  3. 3.Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology, Institute of Computational Molecular ScienceTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Department of ChemistryTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations