Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 30, Issue 9, pp 743–751

Large scale free energy calculations for blind predictions of protein–ligand binding: the D3R Grand Challenge 2015

  • Nanjie Deng
  • William F. Flynn
  • Junchao Xia
  • R. S. K. Vijayan
  • Baofeng Zhang
  • Peng He
  • Ahmet Mentes
  • Emilio Gallicchio
  • Ronald M. Levy
Article

Abstract

We describe binding free energy calculations in the D3R Grand Challenge 2015 for blind prediction of the binding affinities of 180 ligands to Hsp90. The present D3R challenge was built around experimental datasets involving Heat shock protein (Hsp) 90, an ATP-dependent molecular chaperone which is an important anticancer drug target. The Hsp90 ATP binding site is known to be a challenging target for accurate calculations of ligand binding affinities because of the ligand-dependent conformational changes in the binding site, the presence of ordered waters and the broad chemical diversity of ligands that can bind at this site. Our primary focus here is to distinguish binders from nonbinders. Large scale absolute binding free energy calculations that cover over 3000 protein–ligand complexes were performed using the BEDAM method starting from docked structures generated by Glide docking. Although the ligand dataset in this study resembles an intermediate to late stage lead optimization project while the BEDAM method is mainly developed for early stage virtual screening of hit molecules, the BEDAM binding free energy scoring has resulted in a moderate enrichment of ligand screening against this challenging drug target. Results show that, using a statistical mechanics based free energy method like BEDAM starting from docked poses offers better enrichment than classical docking scoring functions and rescoring methods like Prime MM-GBSA for the Hsp90 data set in this blind challenge. Importantly, among the three methods tested here, only the mean value of the BEDAM binding free energy scores is able to separate the large group of binders from the small group of nonbinders with a gap of 2.4 kcal/mol. None of the three methods that we have tested provided accurate ranking of the affinities of the 147 active compounds. We discuss the possible sources of errors in the binding free energy calculations. The study suggests that BEDAM can be used strategically to discriminate binders from nonbinders in virtual screening and to more accurately predict the ligand binding modes prior to the more computationally expensive FEP calculations of binding affinity.

Keywords

D3R GC2015 Hsp90 Binding free energy Docking ROC 

References

  1. 1.
    Boresch S, Tettinger F, Leitgeb M, Karplus M (2003) Absolute binding free energies: a quantitative approach for their calculation. J Phys Chem 107:9535–9551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang C-E, 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
  3. 3.
    Deng Y, Roux B (2006) Calculation of standard binding free energies: aromatic molecules in the T4 lysozyme L99A mutant. J Chem Theory Comput 2:1255–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Wang L, Friesner RA, Berne BJ (2011) Replica exchange with solute scaling: a more efficient version of replica exchange with solute tempering (REST2). J Phys Chem B 115:9431–9438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang L et al (2015) Accurate and reliable prediction of relative ligand binding potency in prospective drug discovery by way of a modern free-energy calculation protocol and force field. J Am Chem Soc 137:2695–2703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mobley DL et al (2014) Blind prediction of HIV integrase binding from the SAMPL4 challenge. J Comput Aided Mol Des 28:327–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gallicchio E, Levy RM (2012) Prediction of SAMPL3 host-guest affinities with the binding energy distribution analysis method (BEDAM). J Comput Aided Mol Des 26:505–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gallicchio E et al (2014) Virtual screening of integrase inhibitors by large scale binding free energy calculations: the SAMPL4 challenge. J Comput Aided Mol Des 28:475–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gallicchio E et al (2015) BEDAM binding free energy predictions for the SAMPL4 octa-acid host challenge. J Comput Aided Mol Des 29:315–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mentes A et al (2016) Binding energy distribution analysis method (BEDAM): Hamiltonian replica exchange with torsional flattening for binding mode prediction and binding free energy estimation. J Chem Theory Comput 12:2459–2470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murray CW et al (2010) Fragment-based drug discovery applied to Hsp90. discovery of two lead series with high ligand efficiency. J Med Chem 53:5942–5955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steinbrecher TB et al (2015) Accurate binding free energy predictions in fragment optimization. J Chem Inf Model 55:2411–2420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haider K, Huggins DJ (2013) Combining solvent thermodynamic profiles with functionality maps of the Hsp90 binding site to predict the displacement of water molecules. J Chem Inf Model 53:2571–2586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deng N et al (2014) Distinguishing binders from false positives by free energy calculations: fragment screening against the flap site of HIV protease. J Phys Chem B 119:976–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jorgensen WL, Maxwell DS, Tirado-Rives 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
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Gallicchio E, Paris K, Levy RM (2009) The AGBNP2 implicit solvation model. J Chem Theory Comput 5:2544–2564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gilson M, Given J, Bush B, Mccammon J (1997) The statistical-thermodynamic basis for computation of binding affinities: a critical review. Biophys J 72:1047–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deng Y, Roux B (2009) Computations of standard binding free energies with molecular dynamics simulations. J Phys Chem B 113:2234–2246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Deng N, Zhang P, Cieplak P, Lai L (2011) Elucidating the energetics of entropically driven protein–ligand association: calculations of absolute binding free energy and entropy. J Phys Chem B 115:11902–11910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lindorff-Larsen K et al (2010) Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinf 78:1950–1958Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang J, 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
  25. 25.
    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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Biophysics & Computational Biology/ICMSPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Chemistry, Brooklyn Collegethe City University of New YorkBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations