Abstract
The success of molecular fragment-based design depends critically on the ability to make predictions of binding poses and of affinity ranking for compounds assembled by linking fragments. The SAMPL3 Challenge provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the performance of a state-of-the-art fragment-based design methodology with respect to these requirements. In this article, we present results derived from linking fragments to predict affinity and pose in the SAMPL3 Challenge. The goal is to demonstrate how incorporating different aspects of modeling protein–ligand interactions impact the accuracy of the predictions, including protein dielectric models, charged versus neutral ligands, ΔΔGs solvation energies, and induced conformational stress. The core method is based on annealing of chemical potential in a Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GC/MC) simulation. By imposing an initially very high chemical potential and then automatically running a sequence of simulations at successively decreasing chemical potentials, the GC/MC simulation efficiently discovers statistical distributions of bound fragment locations and orientations not found reliably without the annealing. This method accounts for configurational entropy, the role of bound water molecules, and results in a prediction of all the locations on the protein that have any affinity for the fragment. Disregarding any of these factors in affinity-rank prediction leads to significantly worse correlation with experimentally-determined free energies of binding. We relate three important conclusions from this challenge as applied to GC/MC: (1) modeling neutral ligands—regardless of the charged state in the active site—produced better affinity ranking than using charged ligands, although, in both cases, the poses were almost exactly overlaid; (2) simulating explicit water molecules in the GC/MC gave better affinity and pose predictions; and (3) applying a ΔΔGs solvation correction further improved the ranking of the neutral ligands. Using the GC/MC method under a variety of parameters in the blinded SAMPL3 Challenge provided important insights to the relevant parameters and boundaries in predicting binding affinities using simulated annealing of chemical potential calculations.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Geballe M, Skillman G, Nicholls A (2011) Statistical assessment of the modeling of proteins and Ligands (SAMPL3) Challenge. http://sampl.eyesopen.com/
Guarnieri F, Mezei M (1996) J Am Chem Soc 118(35):8493
Kulp JL III, Kulp JL Jr, Pompliano DL, Guarnieri F (2011) J Am Chem Soc 133(28):10740
Burger MT, Armstrong A, Guarnieri F, McDonald DQ, Still WC (1994) J Am Chem Soc 116:3593
Guarnieri F, Still WC (1994) J Comput Chem 15:1302
Guarnieri F (1995) J Math Chem 18:25
Brandsdal BO, Österberg F, Almlöf M, Feierberg I, Luzhkov VB, Åqvist J (2003) Free energy calculations and ligand binding. In: Valerie D (ed) Advances in protein chemistry, vol 66. Academic Press, p 123
Simonson T, Archontis G, Karplus M (2002) Acc Chem Res 35:430
Kroeger Smith MB, Hose BM, Hawkins A, Lipchock J, Farnsworth DW, Rizzo RC, Tirado-Rives J, Arnold E, Zhang W, Hughes SH, Jorgensen WL, Michejda CJ, Smith RH Jr (2003) J Med Chem 46(10):1940
Kuhn B, Kollman PA (2000) J Med Chem 43(20):3786
Pearlman DA (2005) J Med Chem 48(24):7796
Warren GL, Andrews CW, Capelli A-M, Clarke B, LaLonde J, Lambert MH, Lindvall M, Nevins N, Semus SF, Senger S, Tedesco G, Wall ID, Woolven JM, Peishoff CE, Head MS (2006) J Med Chem 49(20):5912
Leach AR, Shoichet BK, Peishoff CE (2006) J Med Chem 49(20):5851
Ichihara O, Barker J, Law RJ, Whittaker M (2011) Mol Inform 30(4):298
Chung S, Parker JB, Bianchet M, Amzel LM, Stivers JT (2009) Nat Chem Biol 5(6):407
Moumne R, Larue V, Seijo B, Lecourt T, Micouin L, Tisne C (2010) Org Biomol Chem 8(5):1154
Bas DC, Rogers DM, Jensen JH (2008) Proteins Struct Function Bioinform 73(3):765
Li H, Robertson AD, Jensen JH (2005) Proteins Struct Function Bioinform 61(4):704
Olsson MHM, Søndergaard CR, Rostkowski M, Jensen JH (2011) J Chem Theory Comput 7(2):525
Søndergaard CR, Olsson MHM, Rostkowski M, Jensen JH (2011) J Chem Theory Comput 7(7):2284
Xiang J (2002) JACKAL: a protein structure modeling package. Columbia University, New York
Word JM, Lovell SC, Richardson JS, Richardson DC (1999) J Mol Biol 285(4):1735
Newman J, Fazio VJ, Caradoc-Davies TT, Branson K, Peat TS (2009) J Biomol Screen 14(10):1245
Frenkel D, Smit B (2001) Understanding molecular simulation: from algorithms to applications, 2nd edn, vol 1, Academic Press, New York
Allen MP, Tildesley DJ (1989) Computer simulation of liquids. Oxford University Press, New York
Adams DJ (1975) Mol Phys 29:307
Wang J, Wang W, Kollman PA, Case DA (2006) J Mol Graph Model 25(2):247
Wang J, Wolf RM, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA, Case DA (2004) J Comput Chem 25(9):1157
Cornell WD, Cieplak P, Bayly CI, Gould IR, Merz KM, Ferguson DM, Spellmeyer DC, Fox T, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA (1995) J Am Chem Soc 117(19):5179
Cramer CJ, Truhlar DG (2008) Acc Chem Res 41(6):760
Schmidt MW, Baldridge KK, Boatz JA, Elbert ST, Gordon MS, Jensen JH, Koseki S, Matsunaga N, Nguyen KA, Su S, Windus TL, Dupuis M, Montgomery JA (1993) J Comput Chem 14(11):1347
Wang J, Wang W, Huo S, Lee M, Kollman PA (2001) J Phys Chem B 105(21):5055
Boyer R, Bryan RL (2012) J Phys Chem B submitted for publication
Guarnieri F, Weinstein H (1996) J Am Chem Soc 118(24):5580
Guarnieri F, Wilson SR (1995) J Comput Chem 16(5):648
Whitnell RM, Hurst DP, Reggio PH, Guarnieri F (2008) J Comput Chem 29(5):741
The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 1.4, Schrödinger, LLC
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. William Chiang, Dr. John L. Kulp Jr., and Dr. David L. Pompliano for helpful discussions and commentary.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kulp, J.L., Blumenthal, S.N., Wang, Q. et al. A fragment-based approach to the SAMPL3 Challenge. J Comput Aided Mol Des 26, 583–594 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-012-9546-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-012-9546-1