Binding-affinity predictions of HSP90 in the D3R Grand Challenge 2015 with docking, MM/GBSA, QM/MM, and free-energy simulations

Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, Aug 2016

We have estimated the binding affinity of three sets of ligands of the heat-shock protein 90 in the D3R grand challenge blind test competition. We have employed four different methods, based on five different crystal structures: first, we docked the ligands to the proteins with induced-fit docking with the Glide software and calculated binding affinities with three energy functions. Second, the docked structures were minimised in a continuum solvent and binding affinities were calculated with the MM/GBSA method (molecular mechanics combined with generalised Born and solvent-accessible surface area solvation). Third, the docked structures were re-optimised by combined quantum mechanics and molecular mechanics (QM/MM) calculations. Then, interaction energies were calculated with quantum mechanical calculations employing 970–1160 atoms in a continuum solvent, combined with energy corrections for dispersion, zero-point energy and entropy, ligand distortion, ligand solvation, and an increase of the basis set to quadruple-zeta quality. Fourth, relative binding affinities were estimated by free-energy simulations, using the multi-state Bennett acceptance-ratio approach. Unfortunately, the results were varying and rather poor, with only one calculation giving a correlation to the experimental affinities larger than 0.7, and with no consistent difference in the quality of the predictions from the various methods. For one set of ligands, the results could be strongly improved (after experimental data were revealed) if it was recognised that one of the ligands displaced one or two water molecules. For the other two sets, the problem is probably that the ligands bind in different modes than in the crystal structures employed or that the conformation of the ligand-binding site or the whole protein changes.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10822-016-9942-z.pdf

Binding-affinity predictions of HSP90 in the D3R Grand Challenge 2015 with docking, MM/GBSA, QM/MM, and free-energy simulations

J Comput Aided Mol Des Binding-affinity predictions of HSP90 in the D3R Grand Challenge 2015 with docking, MM/GBSA, QM/MM, and free-energy simulations Majda Misini Ignjatovic´ 0 Octav Caldararu 0 Geng Dong 0 Camila Mun˜ oz-Gutierrez 0 Francisco Adasme-Carren˜ o 0 Ulf Ryde 0 0 Centro de Bioinforma ́tica y Simulacio ́n Molecular, Facultad de Ingenier ́ıa, Universidad de Talca , 2 Norte 685, Talca , Chile We have estimated the binding affinity of three sets of ligands of the heat-shock protein 90 in the D3R grand challenge blind test competition. We have employed four different methods, based on five different crystal structures: first, we docked the ligands to the proteins with induced-fit docking with the Glide software and calculated binding affinities with three energy functions. Second, the docked structures were minimised in a continuum solvent and binding affinities were calculated with the MM/GBSA method (molecular mechanics combined with generalised Born and solvent-accessible surface area solvation). Third, the docked structures were re-optimised by combined quantum mechanics and molecular mechanics (QM/MM) calculations. Then, interaction energies were calculated with quantum mechanical calculations employing 970-1160 atoms in a continuum solvent, combined with energy corrections for dispersion, zero-point energy and Ligand-binding affinity; Induced-fit docking; MM/GBSA; QM/MM; Big-QM; Free-energy perturbation; Continuum solvation; Bennett acceptance ratio; D3R grand challenge; Blind-test competition - Majda Misini Ignjatovic´, Octav Caldararu, Geng Dong, Camila Mun˜oz-Gutierrez and Francisco Adasme-Carren˜o have contributed approximately equal to the investigation: MMI performed the FES simulations of sets 1 and 3, as well as the GCMC calculations; OC performed the FES calculations on set 2; GD performed the QM/MM calculations; CMG and FAD performed the docking and MM/GBSA calculations. Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Lund University, Chemical Centre, P. O. Box 124, 221 00 Lund, Sweden entropy, ligand distortion, ligand solvation, and an increase of the basis set to quadruple-zeta quality. Fourth, relative binding affinities were estimated by free-energy simulations, using the multi-state Bennett acceptance-ratio approach. Unfortunately, the results were varying and rather poor, with only one calculation giving a correlation to the experimental affinities larger than 0.7, and with no consistent difference in the quality of the predictions from the various methods. For one set of ligands, the results could be strongly improved (after experimental data were revealed) if it was recognised that one of the ligands displaced one or two water molecules. For the other two sets, the problem is probably that the ligands bind in different modes than in the crystal structures employed or that the conformation of the ligand-binding site or the whole protein changes. Introduction One of the prime challenges of computational chemistry is to predict the free energy for the binding of small molecules to biomacromolecules. Many biological functions are exerted by the binding of substrates or inhibitors to enzymes or effectors to receptors, and the prime aim of drug development is to find small molecules that bind strongly to the target receptor, but with a small effect on other biosystems. Consequently, much effort has been spent to develop methods with this aim, ranging from simple docking and scoring approaches, via end-point methods, such as MM/GBSA (molecular mechanics combined with generalised Born and solvent-accessible surface area solvation) and linear interaction energies (LIE), to strict free-energy simulation (FES) methods [ 1–4 ]. Numerous studies have evaluated the performance of various binding-affinity methods, e.g. docking [ 5, 6 ], MM/ GBSA [ 7, 8 ], and FES methods [ 9–11 ]. The conclusion has typically been that docking methods can rapidly find the correct binding pose among several other poses, but that they have problems to correctly rank the affinities of a set of ligands to the same protein. MM/GBSA calculations typically give a better ranking of the ligands and an understanding of energy terms involved in the binding, but often vastly overestimate energy differences and the results strongly depend on the employed continuum-solvation model [ 2, 12 ]. Large-scale tests of FES calculations have given rather impressive results for relative binding affinities of similar ligands to the same protein, with mean absolute deviations (MAD) of 4–6 kJ/mol [ 9–11 ]. However, the comparisons have been primarily directed to small changes in the ligands and the performance is uneven, with very good results for some proteins, but quite poor performance for other proteins, occasionally with errors of over 20 kJ/mol. Comparisons of different approaches for the same test case are less common and often half-hearted in the meaning that the authors are experts or developers of one approach (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10822-016-9942-z.pdf

Majda Misini Ignjatović, Octav Caldararu, Geng Dong, Camila Muñoz-Gutierrez, Francisco Adasme-Carreño, Ulf Ryde. Binding-affinity predictions of HSP90 in the D3R Grand Challenge 2015 with docking, MM/GBSA, QM/MM, and free-energy simulations, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 2016, pp. 707-730, Volume 30, Issue 9, DOI: 10.1007/s10822-016-9942-z