Advertisement

Estimates of ligand-binding affinities supported by quantum mechanical methods

  • Pär Söderhjelm
  • Jacob Kongsted
  • Samuel Genheden
  • Ulf RydeEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we review our efforts to use quantum mechanical (QM) methods to improve free-energy estimates of the binding of drug candidates to their receptor proteins. First, we have tested the influence of various implicit solvation models on predictions of the ligand-binding affinity. The accuracy of implicit solvation models strongly depend on the parameterisation, but also on the magnitude of the solvation energy (i.e. their accuracy should be discussed in relative terms). However, if only relative solvation energies within a series of similar drug molecules with the same net charge are considered, nearly all methods tested give a comparable accuracy of 2–5 kJ/mol. Second, we have studied the conformational dependence of QM charges and their influence on ligand-binding affinities. The conformational dependence is significant, but it is to a large extent cancelled by solvation energies. Third, we have estimated the effect and range of electrostatic interactions beyond a point-charge model. The results show that multipoles up to octupoles and anisotropic polarisabilities have a significant influence on energies for residues up to 10–15 °A from the ligand and that different sets of point-charge models may give strongly varying results. However, if only relative energies are considered, the effect is to a large extent cancelled. Fourth, we have tried to develop an accurate QM-based molecular mechanics potential, in which not only the electrostatic terms are improved, but also the dispersion and repulsion. However, even with quite sophisticated expressions, it seems difficult to reduce the average error below 2–3 kJ/mol per interaction (e.g. a hydrogen bond), compared to the full QM treatment. Finally, we have developed a new method, PMISP (polarised multipole interaction with supermolecular pairs), for the calculation of accurate interaction energies. It employs an accurate force field for electrostatics and induction, including multipoles up to octupoles and anisotropic polarisabilities calculated by QM methods on amino-acid fragments of the protein in each conformation observed in snapshots from a molecular dynamics simulation, whereas short-range interactions are estimated by high-level QM calculations for all pairs of the ligand with near-by residues. We show that this approach allows us to go far beyond the current accuracy of molecular mechanics methods, down to an error of 5–10 kJ/mol for a full protein-ligand complex. It can be combined with estimates of solvation, entropy, and dynamic effects to give estimates of binding affinities. However, several problems remain to be solved before any significant improvement in the accuracy can be seen.

Key words

ligand-binding affinities MM/PBSA implicit solvation methods electrostatics polarisation quantum mechanical methods 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Åqvist, J., Medina, C., Samuelsson, J.E. 1994. A new method for predicting binding affinity in computeraided drug design. Prot Eng 7, 385–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bachrach, S.M. 1994. Population analysis and electron densities from quantum mechanics. Rev Comp Chem 5, 171–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bader R.F.W. 1990. Atoms in molecules: A quantum theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Bagus, P.S., Hermann, K., Bauschlicher, C.W.J. 1984. A new analysis of charge transfer and polarization for ligand-metal bonding: Model studies of Al4CO and Al4NH3. J Chem Phys 80, 4378–4386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Barone, V., Cossi, M., Tomasi, J. 1997. A new definition of cavities for the computation of solvation free energies by the polarizable continuum model. J Chem Phys 107, 3210–3221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Bayly, C.I., Cieplak, P., Cornell, W.D., Kollman, P.A. 1993. A well-behaved electrostatic potential based method using charge restraints for deriving atomic charges: the RESP model. J Phys Chem 97, 10269–10280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Besler, B.H., Merz, K.M., Kollman, P.A. 1990. Atomic charges derived from semiempirical methods. J Comput Chem 11, 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Bettens, R.P.A., Lee, A.M. 2007. On the accurate reproduction of ab initio interaction energies between an enzyme and substrate. Chem Phys Lett 449, 341–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Beveridge, D.L, Dicapua, F.M. 1989. Free-energy via molecular simulation — applications to chemical and biomolecular systems. Ann Rev Biophys Biophys Chem 18, 431–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Chandler, D., Andersen, H.C. 1972. Optimized cluster expansions for classical fluids. II. Theory of molecular liquids. J Chem Phys 57, 1930–1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Cieplak, P., Caldwell, J., Kollman, P. 2001. Molecular mechanical models for organic and biological systems going beyond the atom centered two body additive approximation: Aqueous solution free energies of methanol and N-methyl acetamide, nucleic acid base, and amide hydrogen bonding and chloroform/water partition coefficients of the nucleic acid bases. J Comput Chem 22, 1048–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Cisneros, G.A, Piquemal, J.-P, Darden, T. A. 2005. Intermolecular electrostatic energies using density fitting. J Chem Phys 123, 044109.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Cornell, W.D., Cieplak, P., Bayly, C.I., Gould, I.R., Merz, K.M., Ferguson, D.M., Spellmeyer, D.C., Fox, T., Caldwell, J.W., Kollman, P.A. 1995. A second generation force field for the simulation of proteins, nucleic acids, and organic molecules. J Am Chem Soc 117, 5179–5197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Cossi, M., Barone, V., Cammi, R., Tomasi, J. 1996. Ab initio study of solvated molecules: a new implementation of the polarizable continuum model. Chem Phys Lett 255, 327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Dahlke, E.E., Truhlar, D.G. 2007. Electrostatically embedded many-body correlation energy, with applications to the calculation of accurate second-order Møler-Plesset perturbation theory energies for large water clusters. J Chem Theory Comput 3, 1342–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Day, P.N., Jensen, J.H., Gordon, M.S., Webb, S.P., Stevens, W.J., Kraus, M., Garmer, D., Basch, H., Cohen, D. 1996. An effective fragment method for modeling solvent effects in quantum mechanical calculations. J Chem Phys 105, 1968–1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Dehez F., Chipot, C., Millot, C., Ángyán, J.G. 2001. Fast and accurate determination of induction energies: reduction of topologically distributed polarizability models. Chem Phys Lett 338, 180–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Duan, Y., Wu, C., Chowdhury, S., Lee, M.C., Xiong, G., Zhang, W., Yang, R., Cieplak, P., Luo, R., Lee. T. 2003. A point-charge force field for molecular mechanics simulations of proteins based on condensed-phase quantum mechanical calculations. J Comput Chem 24, 1999–2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Engkvist, O., Åstrand, P.-O., Karlström, G. 2000. Accurate intermolecular potentials obtained from molecular wave functions: Bridging the gap between quantum chemistry and molecular simulations. Chem Rev 100, 4087–4108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Florián, J., Warshel, A. 1999. Calculations of hydration entropies of hydrophobic, polar, and ionic solutes in the framework of the Langevin dipoles solvation model. J Phys Chem B 103, 10282–10288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Freitag, M.A., Gordon, M. S., Jensen, J. H. Stevens, W. J. 2000. Evaluation of charge penetration between distributed multipolar expansions. J Chem Phys 112, 7300–7306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Fukuzawa, K., Mochizuki, Y., Tanaka, S., Kitaura, K., Nakano, T. 2006. Molecular interactions between estrogen receptor and its ligand studied by the ab Initio fragment molecular orbital method. J Phys Chem B 110, 16102–16110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Gagliardi, L., Lindh, R., Karlström, G. 2004. Local properties of quantum chemical systems: The LoProp approach. J Chem Phys 121, 4494–4500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Genheden, S., Ryde, U. 2009a. How to obtain statistically converged MM/GBSA results. J Comput Chem. (in press). doi: 10.1002/jcc.21366.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Genheden, S., Ryde, U. 2009b. A comparison of different methods to obtain statistically independent molecular dynamics simulations. J Chem Theory Comput, submitted.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Genheden, S., Söderhjelm, P., Ryde, U. 2009a. Transferability of conformational dependent charges from protein simulations. J Comput Chem, submitted.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Genheden, S., Luchko, T., Gusarov, S., Kovalenko, A., Söderhjelm, P., Ryde, U. 2009b. An MM/3DRISM approach for ligand-binding affinities. J Phys Chem B, submitted.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Giese, T.J., York, D.M. 2004. Many-body force field models based solely on pairwise Coulomb screening do not simultaneously reproduce correct gas-phase and condensed-phase polarizability limits. J Chem Phys 120, 9903–9906.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Gilson, M.K., Zhou, H.-X. 2007. Calculation of protein-ligand binding affinities. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 36, 21–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Gohlke, H., Klebe, G., 2002. Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. Angew Chem Int Ed 41, 2644–2676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Gohlke, H., Case, D. A. 2004. Converging free energy estimates: MM-PB(GB)SA studies on the proteinprotein complex Ras-Raf. J Comput Chem 25, 238–250.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Gresh, N., Piquemal, J.-P., Kraus, M. 2005. Representation of Zn(II) complexes in polarizable molecular mechanics. Further refinements of the electrostatic and short-range contributions. Comparisons with parallel ab initio computations. J Comput Chem 26, 1113–1130.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Gresh, N., Cisneros, G.A., Darden, T.D., Piquemal, J.-P. 2007. Anisotropic, polarizable molecular mechanics studies of inter- and intramolecular interactions and ligand-macromolecule complexes: A bottom-up strategy. J Chem Theory Comput 3, 1960–1986.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Halgren, R.A., Damm, W. 2001. Polarizable force fields. Curr Opin Struct Biol 11, 236–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Hansson, T., Marelius, J., Åqvist, J. 1998. Ligand binding affinity prediction by linear interaction energy methods. J Comput-Aided Mole Design 12, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Hawkins, G.D., Cramer, C.J., Truhlar, D.G. 1996. Parametrized models of aqueous free energies of solvation based on pairwise descreening of solute atomic charges from a dielectric medium. J Phys Chem 100, 19824–19839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    He, X., Mei, Y., Xiang, Y., Zhang D.W., Zhang, J.Z.H. 2005. Quantum computational analysis for drug resistance of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase to nevirapine through point mutations. Proteins, Struct Funct Bioinf 61, 423–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    Hermann, R.B. 1972. Theory of hydrophobic bonding. II. Correlation of hydrocarbon solubility in water with solvent cavity surface area. J Phys Chem 76, 2754–2759.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Himo, F. 2006. Quantum chemical modeling of enzyme active sites and reaction mechanisms. Theor. Chim. Acta 116, 232–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    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, 1985–1993.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    Kitaura, K., Morokuma, K. 1976. A new energy decomposition scheme for molecular interactions within the Hartree-Fock approximation. Int J Quantum Chem 10, 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    Kitaura, K., Ikeo, E., Asada, T., Nakano, T., Uebayasi, M. 1999. Fragment molecular orbital method: an approximate computational method for large molecules. Chem Phys Lett 313, 701–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    Kollman, P.A., Massova, I., Reyes, C., Kuhn, B., Huo, S., Chong, L., Lee, M., Lee., T., Duan, Y., Wang, W., Donini, O., Cieplak, P., Srinivasan, J., Case, D.A., Cheatham, T.E. 2000. Calculating structures and free energies of complex molecules: Combining molecular mechanics and continuum models. Acc Chem Res 33, 889–897.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    Kongsted, J., Ryde, U. 2009. An improved method to predict the entropy term with the MM/PBSA approach. J Comput Aided Mol Design 23, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    Kovalenko, A., Hirata, F. 2000. Potentials of mean force of simple ions in ambient aqueous solution. I. Three-dimensional reference interaction site model approach. J Chem Phys 112, 10391–10402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. [46]
    Kuhn, B., Gerber, P., Schulz-Gasch. T., Stahl, M. 2005. Validation and use of the MM-PBSA approach for drug discovery. J Med Chem 48, 4040–4048.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    Laio A., VandeVondele, J., Rothlisberger, U. 2002. A hamiltonian electrostatic coupling scheme for hybrid Car-Parrinello molecular dynamics simulations. J Chem Phys 116, 6941–6947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    Li, H., Pomelli, C.S.. Jensen, J.H. 2003. Continuum solvation of large molecules described by QM/MM: a semi-iterative implementation of the PCM/EFP interface. Theor Chem Acc 109, 71–84.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    Maple, J.R., Cao, Y., Damm, W., Halgren, T.A., Kaminski, G.A., Zhang, L.Y., Friesner. R.A. 2005. A polarizable force field and continuum solvation methodology for modeling of protein-ligand interactions. J Chem Theory Comput 1, 694–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [50]
    Masia, M., Probst, M., Rey, R. 2005. On the performance of molecular polarization methods. II. Water and carbon tetrachloride close to a cation. J Chem Phys 123, 164505–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    Mei, Y., Xiang, Y., Zhang D.W., Zhang, J.Z.H. 2005. Quantum study of mutational effect in binding of efavirenz to HIV-1 RT. Proteins, Struct Funct Bioinf 59, 489–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. [52]
    Miller Jenkins, L.M., Hara, T., Durell, S.R., Hayashi, R., Inman, J.K., Piquemal, J.-P. Gresh, N., Appella, E. 2007. Specificity of acyl transfer from 2-mercaptobenzamide thioesters to the HIV-1 nucleocapsid Protein. J Am Chem Soc 129, 11067–11078.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. [53]
    Mongan, J., Simmerling, C., McCammon, J. A., Case, D.A., Onufriev, A. 2007. Generalized Born model with a simple, robust molecular volume correction. J Chem Theory Comput 3, 156–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. [54]
    Mulliken, R.S. 1955. Electronic population analysis on LCAOMO molecular wave functions. I. J Chem Phys 23, 1833–1840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. [55]
    Nakanishi, I., Fedorov, D.G., Kitaura, K. 2007. Molecular recognition mechanism of FK506 binding protein: An all-electron fragment molecular orbital study. Proteins, Struct Funct Bioinf 68, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. [56]
    Náray-Szabó, G., Ferenczy, G.G. 1995. Molecular electrostatics. Chem Rev 95, 829–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. [57]
    Neese, F. 2006. A critical evaluation of DFT, including time-dependent DFT, applied to bioinorganic chemistry. J Biol Inorg Chem 11, 702–711.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. [58]
    Nicholls, A., Mobley, D.L., Guthrie, J.P., Chodera, J.D., Bayly, C.I., Cooper, M.D., Pande, V.S. 2008. Predicting small-molecule solvation free energies: An informal blind test for computational chemistry. J Med Chem 51, 769–779.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. [59]
    Onufriev, A., Bashford, D., Case, D.A. 2005. Exploring protein native states and large-scale conformational changes with a modified generalized Born model. Proteins 55, 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. [60]
    Piquemal, J.-P., Gresh, N., Giessner-Prettre, C. 2003. Improved formulas for the calculation of the electrostatic contribution to the intermolecular interaction energy from multipolar expansion of the electronic distribution. J Phys Chem A 107, 10353–10359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. [61]
    Raha, K., Merz, K.M. 2004. A quantum mechanics-based scoring function: Study of zinc ion-mediated ligand binding. J Am Chem Soc 126, 1020–1021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. [62]
    Raha, K., Merz, K.M. 2005. Large-scale validation of a quantum mechanics based scoring function: predicting the binding affinity and the binding mode of a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes. J Med Chem 48, 4558–4575.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. [63]
    Raha, K., Peters, M.B., Wang, B., Yu, N., Wollacott, A.M., Westerhoff, L.M., Merz, K.M. 2007. The role of quantum mechanics in structure-based drug design. Drug Discov Today 12, 725–731.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. [64]
    Rastelli, G., Del Rio, A., Deglieposti, G., Sgobba, M. J Comput Chem (in press). Fast and accurate predictions of binding free energies using MM-PBSA and MM-GBSA. doi: 10.1002/jcc.21372.Google Scholar
  65. [65]
    Ren, P., Ponder, J.W. 2002. Consistent treatment of inter- and intramolecular polarization in molecular mechanics calculations. J Comput Chem 23, 1497–1506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. [66]
    Reynolds, C.A., Essex, J.W., Richards, W.G. 1992. Errors in free-energy perturbation calculations due to neglecting the conformational variation of atomic charges. Chem Phys Lett 199, 257–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. [67]
    Riley, K. E., Hobza, P. 2007. Assessment of the MP2 method, along with several basis sets, for the computation of interaction energies of biologically relevant hydrogen bonded and dispersion bound complexes. J Phys Chem A 111, 8257–8263.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. [68]
    Roux, B., Gresh, N., Perera, L.E., Piquemal, J.-P., Salmon, L. 2007. Binding of 5-phospho-D-arabinonohydroxamate and 5-phospho-Darabinonate inhibitors to zinc phosphomannose isomerase from Candida albicans studied by polarizable molecular mechanics and quantum mechanics. J Comput Chem 28, 938–957.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. [69]
    Ryde, U. 2007. Accurate metal-site structures in proteins obtained by combining experimental data and quantum chemistry. Dalton Trans, 607–625.Google Scholar
  70. [70]
    Ryde, U. 2009. Quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) methods and applications in bioinorganic chemistry. In: Solomon. E. I., King, R.B., Scott. R.A. (eds) Computational inorganic and bioinorganic chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chichester, UK, pp. 33–42.Google Scholar
  71. [71]
    Siegbahn, P.E.M., Borowski, T. 2006. Modeling enzymatic reactions involving transition metals. Acc Chem Res 39, 729–738.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. [72]
    Sigfridsson, E., Ryde, U. 1998. A comparison of methods for deriving atomic charges from the electrostatic potential and moments. J Comp Chem 19, 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. [73]
    Sigfridsson, E., Ryde, U., Bush, B.L. 2002. Restrained point-charge models for disaccharides. J Comp Chem 23, 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. [74]
    Sharp, K.A., Honig, B. 1990. Electrostatic interactions in macromolecules: Theory and applications. Annu Rev Biophys Biophys Chem 19, 301–332.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. [75]
    Stevens, W.J., Fink, W.H. 1987. Frozen fragment reduced variational space analysis of hydrogen bonding interactions. Application to the water dimer. Chem Phys Lett 139, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. [76]
    Still, W.C., Tempczyk, A., Hawley, R.C., Hendrickson, T. 1990. Semianalytical treatment of solvation for molecular mechanics and dynamics. J Am Chem Soc 112, 6127–6129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. [77]
    Stone, A.J., Alderton, M. 1985. Distributed multipole analysis — Methods and applications. Mol Phys 56, 1047–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. [78]
    Söderhjelm, P., Karlström, G., Ryde, U. 2006. Comparison of overlap-based models for approximating the exchange-repulsion energy. J Chem Phys 124, 244101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. [79]
    Söderhjelm P., Krogh, J.W., Karlström, G., Ryde, U., Lindh, R. 2007. Accuracy of distributed multipoles and polarizabilities: Comparison between the LoProp and MpProp models. J Comput Chem 28, 1083–1090.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. [80]
    Söderhjelm, P., Öhrn, A., Ryde, U., Karlström, G. 2008. Accuracy of typical approximations in classical models of intermolecular polarization. J Chem Phys 128, 014102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. [81]
    Söderhjelm., P., Ryde, U. 2009a. How accurate can a force field become? — A polarizable multipole model combined with fragment-wise quantum-mechanical calculations. J Phys Chem A 113, 617–627.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. [82]
    Söderhjelm, P., Ryde, U. 2009b. Conformational dependence of charges in protein simulations. J Comput Chem 30, 750–760.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. [83]
    Söderhjelm, P., Husberg, C., Strambi, A., Olivucci, M., Ryde U. 2009a. Protein influence on electronic spectra modelled by multipoles and polarisabilities. J Chem Theory Comput 5, 649–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. [84]
    Söderhjelm, P., Aquilante, F., Ryde, U. 2009b. Calculation of protein-ligand interaction energies by a fragmentation approach combining high-level quantum chemistry with classical many-body effects. J Phys Chem B 113, 11085–11094.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. [85]
    Söderhjelm, P., Kongsted, J., Ryde, U. 2009c. Estimation of ligand-binding energies by a polarizable multipole model combined with fragment-wise quantum-mechanical calculations. J Chem Theory Comput, submitted.Google Scholar
  86. [86]
    Söderhjelm, P., Kongsted, J., Ryde, U. 2009d. Conformational dependence of polarisabilities in protein simulations. J Comput Chem, submitted.Google Scholar
  87. [87]
    Söderhjelm, P., Öhrn, A., 2009. On the coupling of intermolecular polarization and repulsion through pseudo-potentials. Chem Phys Lett 468, 94–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. [88]
    Stouch, T.R., Williams, D.E. 1992. Conformational dependence of electrostatic potential derived charges of a lipid headgroup: Glycerylphosphorylcholine. J Comput Chem 13, 622–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. [89]
    Swanson, J.M.J., Henchman, R.H., McCammon, J.A. 2004. Revisiting free energy calculations: A theoretical connection to MM/PBSA and direct calculation of the association free energy. Biophys J 86, 67–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. [90]
    Tan, C., Tan, Y.-H., Luo, R. 2007. Implicit nonpolar solvent models. J Phys Chem B 111, 12263–12274.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. [91]
    Tomasi, J., Mennucci, B., Cammi, R. 2005. Quantum mechanical continuum solvation models. Chem. Rev. 105, 2999–3093.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. [92]
    Wang, J., Cieplak, P., Kollman, P.A. 2000. How well does a restrained electrostatic potential (RESP) model perform in calculating conformational energies of organic and biological molecules? J Comput Chem 21, 1049–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. [93]
    Warshel, A. 1979. Calculations of chemical processes in solutions. J Phys Chem 83, 1640–1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. [94]
    Warshel A, Kato, M., Pisliakov, A.V. 2007. Polarizable force fields: History, test cases, and prospects. J Chem Theory Comput 3, 2034–2045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. [95]
    Weis., Katebzadeh, K., Söderhjelm, P., Nilsson, I., Ryde, U. 2006. Ligand affinities predicted with the MM/PBSA method: dependence on the simulation method and the force field. J Med Chem 49, 6596–6606.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. [96]
    Williams, D.E. 1990. Alanyl dipeptide potentialderived net atomic charges and bond dipoles, and their variation with molecular conformation. Biopol 29, 1367–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. [97]
    Williams, G.J., Stone, A.J. 2003. Distributed dispersion: A new approach. J Chem Phys 119, 4620–4628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. [98]
    Wu, E.L., Mei, Y., Han, K., Zhang, J.Z.H. 2007. Quantum and molecular dynamics study for binding of macrocyclic inhibitors to human α-thrombin. Biophys J 92, 4244–4253.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. [99]
    Zhang D.W., Zhang, J.Z.H. 2003. Molecular fractionation with conjugate caps for full quantum mechanical calculation of protein-molecule interaction energy. J Chem Phys 119, 3599–3605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. [100]
    Zhang D.W., Xiang, Y., Zhang, J.Z.H. 2003. New advance in computational chemistry: full quantum mechanical ab Initio computation of streptavidin?biotin interaction energy. J Phys Chem B 107, 12039–12041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. [101]
    Zhang D.W., Xiang, Y., Gao, A.M., Zhang, J.Z.H. 2004. Quantum mechanical map for protein-ligand binding with application to betatrypsin/benzamidine complex. J Chem Phys 120, 1145–1148.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. [102]
    Zhang D.W., Zhang, J.Z.H. 2005. Full quantum mechanical study of binding of HIV-1 protease drugs. Intern J Quant Chem 103, 246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Scientists in the Interdisciplinary Areas and Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pär Söderhjelm
    • 1
  • Jacob Kongsted
    • 2
  • Samuel Genheden
    • 1
  • Ulf Ryde
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Theoretical ChemistryLund University, Chemical CentreLundSweden
  2. 2.Department of Physics and ChemistryUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense MDenmark

Personalised recommendations