MM/PBSA 和 MM/GBSA 在预测 CB1 大麻配体结合亲和力方面的正面比较。

IF 2.1 4区 化学 Q4 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY Journal of Molecular Modeling Pub Date : 2024-10-31 DOI:10.1007/s00894-024-06189-4
Mei Qian Yau, Clarence W. Y. Liew, Jing Hen Toh, Jason S. E. Loo
{"title":"MM/PBSA 和 MM/GBSA 在预测 CB1 大麻配体结合亲和力方面的正面比较。","authors":"Mei Qian Yau,&nbsp;Clarence W. Y. Liew,&nbsp;Jing Hen Toh,&nbsp;Jason S. E. Loo","doi":"10.1007/s00894-024-06189-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Context</h3><p>The substantial increase in the number of active and inactive-state CB<sub>1</sub> receptor experimental structures has provided opportunities for CB<sub>1</sub> drug discovery using various structure-based drug design methods, including the popular end-point methods for predicting binding free energies—Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA) and Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area (MM/GBSA). In this study, we have therefore evaluated the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA in calculating binding free energies for CB<sub>1</sub> receptor. Additionally, with both MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA being known for their highly individualized performance, we have evaluated the effects of various simulation parameters including the use of energy minimized structures, choice of solute dielectric constant, inclusion of entropy, and the effects of the five GB models. Generally, MM/GBSA provided higher correlations than MM/PBSA (<i>r</i><sub>MM/GBSA</sub> = 0.433 – 0.652 vs. <i>r</i><sub>MM/PBSA</sub> = 0.100 – 0.486) regardless of the simulation parameters, while also offering faster calculations. Improved correlations were observed with the use of molecular dynamics ensembles compared with energy minimized structures and larger solute dielectric constants. Incorporation of entropic terms led to unfavorable results for both MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA for a majority of the dataset, while the evaluation of the various GB models exerted a varying effect on both the datasets. The findings obtained in this study demonstrate the utility of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA in predicting binding free energies for the CB<sub>1</sub> receptor, hence providing a useful benchmark for their applicability in the endocannabinoid system as well as other G protein-coupled receptors.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>The study utilized the docked dataset (Induced Fit Docking with Glide XP scoring function) from Loo et al., consisting of 46 ligands—23 agonists and 23 antagonists. The equilibrated structures from Loo et al. were subjected to 30 ns production simulations using GROMACS 2018 at 300 K and 1 atm with the velocity rescaling thermostat and the Parinello-Rahman barostat. AMBER ff99SB*-ILDN was used for the proteins, General Amber Force Field (GAFF) was used for the ligands, and Slipids parameters were used for lipids. MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA binding free energies were then calculated using gmx_MMPBSA. The solute dielectric constant was varied between 1, 2, and 4 to study the effect of different solute dielectric constants on the performance of MM/PB(GB)SA. The effect of entropy on MM/PB(GB)SA binding free energies was evaluated using the interaction entropy module implemented in gmx_MMPBSA. Five GB models, GB<sup>HCT</sup>, GB<sup>OBC1</sup>, GB<sup>OBC2</sup>, GB<sup>Neck</sup>, and GB<sup>Neck2</sup>, were evaluated to study the effect of the choice of GB models in the performance of MM/GBSA. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to measure the correlation between experimental and predicted binding free energies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":651,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Molecular Modeling","volume":"30 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A head-to-head comparison of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA in predicting binding affinities for the CB1 cannabinoid ligands\",\"authors\":\"Mei Qian Yau,&nbsp;Clarence W. Y. Liew,&nbsp;Jing Hen Toh,&nbsp;Jason S. E. Loo\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00894-024-06189-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Context</h3><p>The substantial increase in the number of active and inactive-state CB<sub>1</sub> receptor experimental structures has provided opportunities for CB<sub>1</sub> drug discovery using various structure-based drug design methods, including the popular end-point methods for predicting binding free energies—Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA) and Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area (MM/GBSA). In this study, we have therefore evaluated the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA in calculating binding free energies for CB<sub>1</sub> receptor. Additionally, with both MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA being known for their highly individualized performance, we have evaluated the effects of various simulation parameters including the use of energy minimized structures, choice of solute dielectric constant, inclusion of entropy, and the effects of the five GB models. Generally, MM/GBSA provided higher correlations than MM/PBSA (<i>r</i><sub>MM/GBSA</sub> = 0.433 – 0.652 vs. <i>r</i><sub>MM/PBSA</sub> = 0.100 – 0.486) regardless of the simulation parameters, while also offering faster calculations. Improved correlations were observed with the use of molecular dynamics ensembles compared with energy minimized structures and larger solute dielectric constants. Incorporation of entropic terms led to unfavorable results for both MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA for a majority of the dataset, while the evaluation of the various GB models exerted a varying effect on both the datasets. The findings obtained in this study demonstrate the utility of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA in predicting binding free energies for the CB<sub>1</sub> receptor, hence providing a useful benchmark for their applicability in the endocannabinoid system as well as other G protein-coupled receptors.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>The study utilized the docked dataset (Induced Fit Docking with Glide XP scoring function) from Loo et al., consisting of 46 ligands—23 agonists and 23 antagonists. The equilibrated structures from Loo et al. were subjected to 30 ns production simulations using GROMACS 2018 at 300 K and 1 atm with the velocity rescaling thermostat and the Parinello-Rahman barostat. AMBER ff99SB*-ILDN was used for the proteins, General Amber Force Field (GAFF) was used for the ligands, and Slipids parameters were used for lipids. MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA binding free energies were then calculated using gmx_MMPBSA. The solute dielectric constant was varied between 1, 2, and 4 to study the effect of different solute dielectric constants on the performance of MM/PB(GB)SA. The effect of entropy on MM/PB(GB)SA binding free energies was evaluated using the interaction entropy module implemented in gmx_MMPBSA. Five GB models, GB<sup>HCT</sup>, GB<sup>OBC1</sup>, GB<sup>OBC2</sup>, GB<sup>Neck</sup>, and GB<sup>Neck2</sup>, were evaluated to study the effect of the choice of GB models in the performance of MM/GBSA. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to measure the correlation between experimental and predicted binding free energies.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Molecular Modeling\",\"volume\":\"30 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Molecular Modeling\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"92\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00894-024-06189-4\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Molecular Modeling","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00894-024-06189-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:活性和非活性状态的 CB1 受体实验结构数量的大幅增加为使用各种基于结构的药物设计方法发现 CB1 药物提供了机会,其中包括预测结合自由能的流行终点方法--分子力学/泊松-玻尔兹曼表面积(MM/PBSA)和分子力学/广义玻恩表面积(MM/GBSA)。因此,我们在本研究中评估了 MM/PBSA 和 MM/GBSA 在计算 CB1 受体结合自由能方面的性能。此外,由于 MM/PBSA 和 MM/GBSA 都以其高度个性化的性能而著称,我们还评估了各种模拟参数的影响,包括能量最小化结构的使用、溶质介电常数的选择、熵的加入以及五种 GB 模型的影响。一般来说,无论模拟参数如何,MM/GBSA 都比 MM/PBSA 提供了更高的相关性(rMM/GBSA = 0.433 - 0.652 vs. rMM/PBSA = 0.100 - 0.486),同时计算速度也更快。与能量最小化结构和更大的溶质介电常数相比,使用分子动力学集合可以改善相关性。在大部分数据集中,熵项的加入导致 MM/PBSA 和 MM/GBSA 的不利结果,而各种 GB 模型的评估对两个数据集都产生了不同的影响。本研究的结果证明了 MM/PBSA 和 MM/GBSA 在预测 CB1 受体结合自由能方面的实用性,从而为它们在内源性大麻素系统和其他 G 蛋白偶联受体中的适用性提供了一个有用的基准:研究利用了 Loo 等人的对接数据集(使用 Glide XP 评分功能的诱导拟合对接),其中包括 46 种配体--23 种激动剂和 23 种拮抗剂。在 300 K 和 1 atm 条件下,使用 GROMACS 2018 和速度重定恒温器以及 Parinello-Rahman barostat 对 Loo 等人的平衡结构进行了 30 ns 的生产模拟。蛋白质使用 AMBER ff99SB*-ILDN ,配体使用 General Amber Force Field (GAFF),脂质使用 Slipids 参数。然后使用 gmx_MMPBSA 计算 MM/PBSA 和 MM/GBSA 结合自由能。溶质介电常数在 1、2 和 4 之间变化,以研究不同溶质介电常数对 MM/PB(GB)SA 性能的影响。使用 gmx_MMPBSA 中的相互作用熵模块评估了熵对 MM/PB(GB)SA 结合自由能的影响。评估了 GBHCT、GBOBC1、GBOBC2、GBNeck 和 GBNeck2 五种 GB 模型,以研究选择 GB 模型对 MM/GBSA 性能的影响。皮尔逊相关系数用于测量实验结合自由能与预测结合自由能之间的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A head-to-head comparison of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA in predicting binding affinities for the CB1 cannabinoid ligands

Context

The substantial increase in the number of active and inactive-state CB1 receptor experimental structures has provided opportunities for CB1 drug discovery using various structure-based drug design methods, including the popular end-point methods for predicting binding free energies—Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA) and Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area (MM/GBSA). In this study, we have therefore evaluated the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA in calculating binding free energies for CB1 receptor. Additionally, with both MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA being known for their highly individualized performance, we have evaluated the effects of various simulation parameters including the use of energy minimized structures, choice of solute dielectric constant, inclusion of entropy, and the effects of the five GB models. Generally, MM/GBSA provided higher correlations than MM/PBSA (rMM/GBSA = 0.433 – 0.652 vs. rMM/PBSA = 0.100 – 0.486) regardless of the simulation parameters, while also offering faster calculations. Improved correlations were observed with the use of molecular dynamics ensembles compared with energy minimized structures and larger solute dielectric constants. Incorporation of entropic terms led to unfavorable results for both MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA for a majority of the dataset, while the evaluation of the various GB models exerted a varying effect on both the datasets. The findings obtained in this study demonstrate the utility of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA in predicting binding free energies for the CB1 receptor, hence providing a useful benchmark for their applicability in the endocannabinoid system as well as other G protein-coupled receptors.

Methods

The study utilized the docked dataset (Induced Fit Docking with Glide XP scoring function) from Loo et al., consisting of 46 ligands—23 agonists and 23 antagonists. The equilibrated structures from Loo et al. were subjected to 30 ns production simulations using GROMACS 2018 at 300 K and 1 atm with the velocity rescaling thermostat and the Parinello-Rahman barostat. AMBER ff99SB*-ILDN was used for the proteins, General Amber Force Field (GAFF) was used for the ligands, and Slipids parameters were used for lipids. MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA binding free energies were then calculated using gmx_MMPBSA. The solute dielectric constant was varied between 1, 2, and 4 to study the effect of different solute dielectric constants on the performance of MM/PB(GB)SA. The effect of entropy on MM/PB(GB)SA binding free energies was evaluated using the interaction entropy module implemented in gmx_MMPBSA. Five GB models, GBHCT, GBOBC1, GBOBC2, GBNeck, and GBNeck2, were evaluated to study the effect of the choice of GB models in the performance of MM/GBSA. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to measure the correlation between experimental and predicted binding free energies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Molecular Modeling
Journal of Molecular Modeling 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
362
审稿时长
2.9 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Molecular Modeling focuses on "hardcore" modeling, publishing high-quality research and reports. Founded in 1995 as a purely electronic journal, it has adapted its format to include a full-color print edition, and adjusted its aims and scope fit the fast-changing field of molecular modeling, with a particular focus on three-dimensional modeling. Today, the journal covers all aspects of molecular modeling including life science modeling; materials modeling; new methods; and computational chemistry. Topics include computer-aided molecular design; rational drug design, de novo ligand design, receptor modeling and docking; cheminformatics, data analysis, visualization and mining; computational medicinal chemistry; homology modeling; simulation of peptides, DNA and other biopolymers; quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) and ADME-modeling; modeling of biological reaction mechanisms; and combined experimental and computational studies in which calculations play a major role.
期刊最新文献
Insight into the structural and dynamic properties of novel HSP90 inhibitors through DFT calculations and molecular dynamics simulations Improved energy equations and thermal functions for diatomic molecules: a generalized fractional derivative approach NO2 properties that affect its reaction with pristine and Pt-doped SnS2: a gas sensor study Theoretical study of the synergistic effect between glyceryl monooleate lubricant and carboxymethylcellulose in reducing the coefficient of friction of water-based drilling fluids Constructing, in silico, molecular self-aggregates and micro-hydrated complexes of oxirene and thiirene
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1