Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 30, Issue 11, pp 1067–1077 | Cite as

Adapting the semi-explicit assembly solvation model for estimating water-cyclohexane partitioning with the SAMPL5 molecules

  • Emiliano Brini
  • S. Shanaka Paranahewage
  • Christopher J. Fennell
  • Ken A. Dill
Article

Abstract

We describe here some tests we made in the SAMPL5 communal event of ‘Semi-Explicit Assembly’ (SEA), a recent method for computing solvation free energies. We combined the prospective tests of SAMPL5 with followup retrospective calculations, to improve two technical aspects of the field variant of SEA. First, SEA uses an approximate analytical surface around the solute on which a water potential is computed. We have improved and simplified the mathematical model of that surface. Second, some of the solutes in SAMPL5 were large enough to need a way to treat solvating waters interacting with ‘buried atoms’, i.e. interior atoms of the solute. We improved SEA with a buried-atom correction. We also compare SEA to Thermodynamic Integration molecular dynamics simulations, so that we can sort out force field errors.

Keywords

SAMPL SEA Solvation free energy Partitioning Distribution coefficient 

Supplementary material

10822_2016_9961_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 1047 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Fennell CJ, Kehoe C, Dill KA (2010) Oil/Water transfer is partly driven by molecular shape, not just size. J Am Chem Soc 132:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fennell CJ, Kehoe CW, Dill KA (2011) Modeling aqueous solvation with semi-explicit assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:3234–3239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li L, Fennell CJ, Dill KA (2014) Field-SEA: a model for computing the solvation free energies of nonpolar, polar, and charged solutes in water. J Phys Chem B 118:6431–6437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kehoe CW, Fennell CJ, Dill KA (2012) Testing the semi-explicit assembly solvation model in the SAMPL3 community blind test. J Comput Aided Mol Des 26:563–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li L, Dill KA, Fennell CJ (2014) Testing the semi-explicit assembly model of aqueous solvation in the SAMPL4 challenge. J Comput Aided Mol Des 28:259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nicholls A, Mobley DL, Guthrie JP, Chodera JD, Bayly CI, Cooper MD, Pande VS (2008) Predicting small-molecule solvation free energies: an informal blind test for computational chemistry. J Med Chem 51:769–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guthrie JP (2009) A blind challenge for computational solvation free energies: introduction and overview. J Phys Chem B 113:4501–4507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Skillman AG (2012) SAMPL3: blinded prediction of host-guest binding affinities, hydration free energies, and trypsin inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des 26:473–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mobley DL, Wymer KL, Lim NM, Guthrie PJ (2014) Blind prediction of solvation free energies from the SAMPL4 challenge. J Comput Aided Mol Des 3:135–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Still WC, Tempczyk A, Hawley RC, Hendrickson T (1990) Semianalytical treatment of solvation for molecular mechanics and dynamics. J Am Chem Soc 112:6127–6129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sitkoff D, Sharp KA, Honig B (1994) Accurate calculation of hydration free energies using macroscopic solvent models. J Phys Chem 98:1978–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hawkins GD, Cramer CJ, Truhlar DG (1995) Pairwise solute descreening of solute charges from a dielectric medium. Chem Phys Lett 246:122–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gilson MK, McCammon JA, Madura JD (1995) Molecular dynamics simulation with a continuum electrostatic model of the solvent. J Comput Chem 16:1081–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsui V, Case DA (2000) Theory and applications of the generalized born solvation model in macromolecular simulations. Biopolymers 56:275–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wagoner JA, Baker NA (2006) Assessing implicit models for nonpolar mean solvation forces: the importance of dispersion and volume terms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:8331–8336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mongan J, Simmerling C, McCammon JA, Case DA, Onufriev A (2007) Generalized Born model with a simple, robust molecular volume correction. J Chem Theory Comput 3:156–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tan C, Tan Y-H, Luo R (2007) Implicit nonpolar solvent models. J Phys Chem B 111:12263–12274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hummer G (1999) Hydrophobic force field as a molecular alternative to surface-area models. J Am Chem Soc 121:6299–6305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pitera JW, van Gunsteren WF (2001) The importance of solute–solvent van der waals interactions with interior atoms of biopolymers. J Am Chem Soc 123:3163–3164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    Fennell CJ, Li L, Dill KA (2012) Simple liquid models with corrected dielectric constants. J Phys Chem B 116:6936–6944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Paranahewage SS, Gierhart CS, Fennell, CJ (2016) Predicting water-to-cyclohexane partitioning of the sampl5 molecules using dielectric balancing of force fields. J Comput Aided Mol Des. doi:10.1007/s10822-016-9950-z
  26. 26.
    Wolfram Research Inc. (2016) Mathematica, Version 10.41. Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Steinbrecher T, Mobley DL, Case DA (2007) Nonlinear scaling schemes for Lennard-Jones interactions in free energy calculations. J Chem Phys 127:214108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Berendsen HJC, van der Spoel D, van Drunen R (1995) GROMACS: a message-passing parallel molecular dynamics implementation. Comput Phys Commun 91:43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van der Spoel D, Lindahl E, Hess B, Groenhof G, Mark AE, Berendsen HJC (2005) Gromacs: fast, flexible, and free. J Comput Chem 26:1701–1718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hess B, Kutzner C, van der Spoel D, Lindahl E (2008) Gromacs 4: algorithms for highly efficient, load-balanced, and scalable molecular simulation. J Chem Theory Comput 4:435–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pronk S et al (2013) Gromacs 4.5: a high-throughput and highly parallel open source molecular simulation toolkit. Bioinformatics 29:845–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Abraham MJ, Murtola T, Schulz R, Páll S, Smith JC, Hess B, Lindahl E (2015) Gromacs: high performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX 1:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Goga N, Rzepiela A, de Vries A, Marrink S, Berendsen H (2012) Efficient algorithms for langevin and DPD dynamics. J Chem Theory Comput 8:3637–3649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parrinello M, Rahman A (1981) Polymorphic transitions in single crystals: a new molecular dynamics method. J Appl Phys 52:7182–7190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Essman U, Perela L, Berkowitz ML, Darden T, Lee H, Pedersen LG (1995) A smooth particle mesh ewald method. J Chem Phys 103:8577–8592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    BenNaim A, Marcus Y (1984) Solvation thermodynamics of nonionic solutes. J Chem Phys 81:2016–2027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Eisenhaber F, Lijnzaad P, Argos P, Sander C, Scharf M (1995) The double cubic lattice method: efficient approaches to numerical integration of surface area and volume and to dot surface contouring of molecular assemblies. J Comput Chem 16:273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laufer Center for Physical and Quantitative BiologyStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA
  4. 4.Department of Physics and AstronomyStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations