skip to main content

Title: Development and test of highly accurate endpoint free energy methods. 1: Evaluation of ABCG2 charge model on solvation free energy prediction and optimization of atom radii suitable for more accurate solvation free energy prediction by the PBSA method

Accurate estimation of solvation free energy (SFE) lays the foundation for accurate prediction of binding free energy. The Poisson‐Boltzmann (PB) or generalized Born (GB) combined with surface area (SA) continuum solvation method (PBSA and GBSA) have been widely used in SFE calculations because they can achieve good balance between accuracy and efficiency. However, the accuracy of these methods can be affected by several factors such as the charge models, polar and nonpolar SFE calculation methods and the atom radii used in the calculation. In this work, the performance of the ABCG2 (AM1‐BCC‐GAFF2) charge model as well as other two charge models, that is, RESP (Restrained Electrostatic Potential) and AM1‐BCC (Austin Model 1‐bond charge corrections), on the SFE prediction of 544 small molecules in water by PBSA/GBSA was evaluated. In order to improve the performance of the PBSA prediction based on the ABCG2 charge, we further explored the influence of atom radii on the prediction accuracy and yielded a set of atom radius parameters for more accurate SFE prediction using PBSA based on the ABCG2/GAFF2 by reproducing the thermodynamic integration (TI) calculation results. The PB radius parameters of carbon, oxygen, sulfur, phosphorus, chloride, bromide and iodine, were adjusted. New atom types,on,oi,hn1,hn2,hn3, were introduced to further improve the fitting performance. Then, we tuned the parameters in the nonpolar SFE model using the experimental SFE data and the PB calculation results. By adopting the new radius parameters and new nonpolar SFE model, the root mean square error (RMSE) of the SFE calculation for the 544 molecules decreased from 2.38 to 1.05 kcal/mol. Finally, the new radius parameters were applied in the prediction of protein‐ligand binding free energies using the MM‐PBSA method. For the eight systems tested, we could observe higher correlation between the experiment data and calculation results and smaller prediction errors for the absolute binding free energies, demonstrating that our new radius parameters can improve the free energy calculation using the MM‐PBSA method.

more » « less
Award ID(s):
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  
Publisher / Repository:
Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Journal of Computational Chemistry
Page Range / eLocation ID:
p. 1334-1346
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Implicit solvent models divide solvation free energies into polar and nonpolar additive contributions, whereas polar and nonpolar interactions are inseparable and nonadditive. We present a feature functional theory (FFT) framework to break thisad hocdivision. The essential ideas of FFT are as follows: (i) representability assumption: there exists a microscopic feature vector that can uniquely characterize and distinguish one molecule from another; (ii) feature‐function relationship assumption: the macroscopic features, including solvation free energy, of a molecule is a functional of microscopic feature vectors; and (iii) similarity assumption: molecules with similar microscopic features have similar macroscopic properties, such as solvation free energies. Based on these assumptions, solvation free energy prediction is carried out in the following protocol. First, we construct a molecular microscopic feature vector that is efficient in characterizing the solvation process using quantum mechanics and Poisson–Boltzmann theory. Microscopic feature vectors are combined with macroscopic features, that is, physical observable, to form extended feature vectors. Additionally, we partition a solvation dataset into queries according to molecular compositions. Moreover, for each target molecule, we adopt a machine learning algorithm for its nearest neighbor search, based on the selected microscopic feature vectors. Finally, from the extended feature vectors of obtained nearest neighbors, we construct a functional of solvation free energy, which is employed to predict the solvation free energy of the target molecule. The proposed FFT model has been extensively validated via a large dataset of 668 molecules. The leave‐one‐out test gives an optimal root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) of 1.05 kcal/mol. FFT predictions of SAMPL0, SAMPL1, SAMPL2, SAMPL3, and SAMPL4 challenge sets deliver the RMSEs of 0.61, 1.86, 1.64, 0.86, and 1.14 kcal/mol, respectively. Using a test set of 94 molecules and its associated training set, the present approach was carefully compared with a classic solvation model based on weighted solvent accessible surface area. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

    more » « less
  2. Abstract

    The logarithm ofn‐octanol–water partition coefficient (logP) is frequently used as an indicator of lipophilicity in drug discovery, which has substantial impacts on the absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity of a drug candidate. Considering that the experimental measurement of the property is costly and time‐consuming, it is of great importance to develop reliable prediction models for logP. In this study, we developed a transfer free energy‐based logP prediction model‐FElogP. FElogP is based on the simple principle that logP is determined by the free energy change of transferring a molecule from water ton‐octanol. The underlying physical method to calculate transfer free energy is the molecular mechanics‐Poisson Boltzmann surface area (MM‐PBSA), thus this method is named as free energy‐based logP (FElogP). The superiority of FElogP model was validated by a large set of 707 structurally diverse molecules in the ZINC database for which the measurement was of high quality. Encouragingly, FElogP outperformed several commonly‐used QSPR or machine learning‐based logP models, as well as some continuum solvation model‐based methods. The root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) and Pearson correlation coefficient (R) between the predicted and measured values are 0.91 log units and 0.71, respectively, while the runner‐up, the logP model implemented in OpenBabel had an RMSE of 1.13 log units and R of 0.67. Given the fact that FElogP was not parameterized against experimental logP directly, its excellent performance is likely to be expanded to arbitrary organic molecules covered by the general AMBER force fields.

    more » « less
  3. Metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) play an important role in regulating glutamate signal pathways, which are involved in neuropathy and periphery homeostasis. mGluR4, which belongs to Group III mGluRs, is most widely distributed in the periphery among all the mGluRs. It has been proved that the regulation of this receptor is involved in diabetes, colorectal carcinoma and many other diseases. However, the application of structure-based drug design to identify small molecules to regulate the mGluR4 receptor is limited due to the absence of a resolved mGluR4 protein structure. In this work, we first built a homology model of mGluR4 based on a crystal structure of mGluR8, and then conducted hierarchical virtual screening (HVS) to identify possible active ligands for mGluR4. The HVS protocol consists of three hierarchical filters including Glide docking, molecular dynamic (MD) simulation and binding free energy calculation. We successfully prioritized active ligands of mGluR4 from a set of screening compounds using HVS. The predicted active ligands based on binding affinities can almost cover all the experiment-determined active ligands, with only one ligand missed. The correlation between the measured and predicted binding affinities is significantly improved for the MM-PB/GBSA-WSAS methods compared to the Glide docking method. More importantly, we have identified hotspots for ligand binding, and we found that SER157 and GLY158 tend to contribute to the selectivity of mGluR4 ligands, while ALA154 and ALA155 could account for the ligand selectivity to mGluR8. We also recognized other 5 key residues that are critical for ligand potency. The difference of the binding profiles between mGluR4 and mGluR8 can guide us to develop more potent and selective modulators. Moreover, we evaluated the performance of IPSF, a novel type of scoring function trained by a machine learning algorithm on residue–ligand interaction profiles, in guiding drug lead optimization. The cross-validation root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) are much smaller than those by the endpoint methods, and the correlation coefficients are comparable to the best endpoint methods for both mGluRs. Thus, machine learning-based IPSF can be applied to guide lead optimization, albeit the total number of actives/inactives are not big, a typical scenario in drug discovery projects. 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract

    We demonstrate that the solvation‐layer interface condition (SLIC) continuum dielectric model for molecular electrostatics, combined with a simple solvent‐accessible‐surface‐area (SASA)‐proportional model for nonpolar solvent effects, accurately predicts solvation entropies of neutral and charged small molecules. The SLIC/SASA model has only seven fitting parameters in total and achieves this accuracy using a training set with only 20 compounds. Despite this simplicity, solvation free energies and entropies are nearly as accurate as those predicted by the more sophisticated Langevin dipoles solvation model. Surprisingly, the model automatically reproduces the negligible contribution of electrostatics to the solvation of hydrophobic compounds. Opportunities for improvement include nonpolar solvation, anion solvation entropies, and heat capacities. More molecular realism may be needed for these quantities. To enable a future, explicit‐solvent‐based assessment of the SLIC/SASA implicit‐solvent model, we predict solvation entropies for the Mobley test set, which are available as Supporting Information.

    more » « less
  5. This data set for the manuscript entitled "Design of Peptides that Fold and Self-Assemble on Graphite" includes all files needed to run and analyze the simulations described in the this manuscript in the molecular dynamics software NAMD, as well as the output of the simulations. The files are organized into directories corresponding to the figures of the main text and supporting information. They include molecular model structure files (NAMD psf or Amber prmtop format), force field parameter files (in CHARMM format), initial atomic coordinates (pdb format), NAMD configuration files, Colvars configuration files, NAMD log files, and NAMD output including restart files (in binary NAMD format) and trajectories in dcd format (downsampled to 10 ns per frame). Analysis is controlled by shell scripts (Bash-compatible) that call VMD Tcl scripts or python scripts. These scripts and their output are also included.

    Version: 2.0

    Changes versus version 1.0 are the addition of the free energy of folding, adsorption, and pairing calculations (Sim_Figure-7) and shifting of the figure numbers to accommodate this addition.

    Conventions Used in These Files

    Structure Files
    - graph_*.psf or sol_*.psf (original NAMD (XPLOR?) format psf file including atom details (type, charge, mass), as well as definitions of bonds, angles, dihedrals, and impropers for each dipeptide.)

    - graph_*.pdb or sol_*.pdb (initial coordinates before equilibration)
    - repart_*.psf (same as the above psf files, but the masses of non-water hydrogen atoms have been repartitioned by VMD script repartitionMass.tcl)
    - freeTop_*.pdb (same as the above pdb files, but the carbons of the lower graphene layer have been placed at a single z value and marked for restraints in NAMD)
    - amber_*.prmtop (combined topology and parameter files for Amber force field simulations)
    - repart_amber_*.prmtop (same as the above prmtop files, but the masses of non-water hydrogen atoms have been repartitioned by ParmEd)

    Force Field Parameters
    CHARMM format parameter files:
    - par_all36m_prot.prm (CHARMM36m FF for proteins)
    - par_all36_cgenff_no_nbfix.prm (CGenFF v4.4 for graphene) The NBFIX parameters are commented out since they are only needed for aromatic halogens and we use only the CG2R61 type for graphene.
    - toppar_water_ions_prot_cgenff.str (CHARMM water and ions with NBFIX parameters needed for protein and CGenFF included and others commented out)

    Template NAMD Configuration Files
    These contain the most commonly used simulation parameters. They are called by the other NAMD configuration files (which are in the namd/ subdirectory):
    - template_min.namd (minimization)
    - template_eq.namd (NPT equilibration with lower graphene fixed)
    - template_abf.namd (for adaptive biasing force)

    - namd/min_*.0.namd

    - namd/eq_*.0.namd

    Adaptive biasing force calculations
    - namd/eabfZRest7_graph_chp1404.0.namd
    - namd/eabfZRest7_graph_chp1404.1.namd (continuation of eabfZRest7_graph_chp1404.0.namd)

    Log Files
    For each NAMD configuration file given in the last two sections, there is a log file with the same prefix, which gives the text output of NAMD. For instance, the output of namd/eabfZRest7_graph_chp1404.0.namd is eabfZRest7_graph_chp1404.0.log.

    Simulation Output
    The simulation output files (which match the names of the NAMD configuration files) are in the output/ directory. Files with the extensions .coor, .vel, and .xsc are coordinates in NAMD binary format, velocities in NAMD binary format, and extended system information (including cell size) in text format. Files with the extension .dcd give the trajectory of the atomic coorinates over time (and also include system cell information). Due to storage limitations, large DCD files have been omitted or replaced with new DCD files having the prefix stride50_ including only every 50 frames. The time between frames in these files is 50 * 50000 steps/frame * 4 fs/step = 10 ns. The system cell trajectory is also included for the NPT runs are output/eq_*.xst.

    Files with the .sh extension can be found throughout. These usually provide the highest level control for submission of simulations and analysis. Look to these as a guide to what is happening. If there are scripts with step1_*.sh and step2_*.sh, they are intended to be run in order, with step1_*.sh first.


    The directory contents are as follows. The directories Sim_Figure-1 and Sim_Figure-8 include README.txt files that describe the files and naming conventions used throughout this data set.

    Sim_Figure-1: Simulations of N-acetylated C-amidated amino acids (Ac-X-NHMe) at the graphite–water interface.

    Sim_Figure-2: Simulations of different peptide designs (including acyclic, disulfide cyclized, and N-to-C cyclized) at the graphite–water interface.

    Sim_Figure-3: MM-GBSA calculations of different peptide sequences for a folded conformation and 5 misfolded/unfolded conformations.

    Sim_Figure-4: Simulation of four peptide molecules with the sequence cyc(GTGSGTG-GPGG-GCGTGTG-SGPG) at the graphite–water interface at 370 K.

    Sim_Figure-5: Simulation of four peptide molecules with the sequence cyc(GTGSGTG-GPGG-GCGTGTG-SGPG) at the graphite–water interface at 295 K.

    Sim_Figure-5_replica: Temperature replica exchange molecular dynamics simulations for the peptide cyc(GTGSGTG-GPGG-GCGTGTG-SGPG) with 20 replicas for temperatures from 295 to 454 K.

    Sim_Figure-6: Simulation of the peptide molecule cyc(GTGSGTG-GPGG-GCGTGTG-SGPG) in free solution (no graphite).

    Sim_Figure-7: Free energy calculations for folding, adsorption, and pairing for the peptide CHP1404 (sequence: cyc(GTGSGTG-GPGG-GCGTGTG-SGPG)). For folding, we calculate the PMF as function of RMSD by replica-exchange umbrella sampling (in the subdirectory Folding_CHP1404_Graphene/). We make the same calculation in solution, which required 3 seperate replica-exchange umbrella sampling calculations (in the subdirectory Folding_CHP1404_Solution/). Both PMF of RMSD calculations for the scrambled peptide are in Folding_scram1404/. For adsorption, calculation of the PMF for the orientational restraints and the calculation of the PMF along z (the distance between the graphene sheet and the center of mass of the peptide) are in Adsorption_CHP1404/ and Adsorption_scram1404/. The actual calculation of the free energy is done by a shell script ("") in the 1_free_energy/ subsubdirectory. Processing of the PMFs must be done first in the 0_pmf/ subsubdirectory. Finally, files for free energy calculations of pair formation for CHP1404 are found in the Pair/ subdirectory.

    Sim_Figure-8: Simulation of four peptide molecules with the sequence cyc(GTGSGTG-GPGG-GCGTGTG-SGPG) where the peptides are far above the graphene–water interface in the initial configuration.

    Sim_Figure-9: Two replicates of a simulation of nine peptide molecules with the sequence cyc(GTGSGTG-GPGG-GCGTGTG-SGPG) at the graphite–water interface at 370 K.

    Sim_Figure-9_scrambled: Two replicates of a simulation of nine peptide molecules with the control sequence cyc(GGTPTTGGGGGGSGGPSGTGGC) at the graphite–water interface at 370 K.

    Sim_Figure-10: Adaptive biasing for calculation of the free energy of the folded peptide as a function of the angle between its long axis and the zigzag directions of the underlying graphene sheet.


    This material is based upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation under grant no. DMR-1945589. A majority of the computing for this project was performed on the Beocat Research Cluster at Kansas State University, which is funded in part by NSF grants CHE-1726332, CNS-1006860, EPS-1006860, and EPS-0919443. This work used the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE), which is supported by National Science Foundation grant number ACI-1548562, through allocation BIO200030. 
    more » « less