Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Henriksen, N. M.

Publications and source records attributed to Henriksen, N. M..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

The SAMPL6 SAMPLing challenge: Assessing the reliability and efficiency of binding free energy calculations

Approaches for computing small molecule binding free energies based on molecular simulations are now regularly being employed by academic and industry practitioners to study receptor-ligand systems and prioritize the synthesis of small molecules for ligand design. Given the variety of methods and implementations available, it is natural to ask how the convergence rates and final predictions of these methods compare. In this study, we describe the concept and results for the SAMPL6 SAMPLing challenge, the first challenge from the SAMPL series focusing on the assessment of convergence properties and reproducibility of binding free energy methodologies. We provided parameter files, partial charges, and multiple initial geometries for two octa-acid (OA) and one cucurbit[8]uril (CB8) host-guest systems. Participants submitted binding free energy predictions as a function of the number of force and energy evaluations for seven different alchemical and physical-pathway (i.e., potential of mean force and weighted ensemble of trajectories) methodologies implemented with the GROMACS, AMBER, NAMD, or OpenMM simulation engines. To rank the methods, we developed an efficiency statistic based on bias and variance of the free energy estimates. For the two small OA binders, the free energy estimates computed with alchemical and potential of mean force approaches show relatively similar variance and bias as a function of the number of energy/force evaluations, with the attach-pull-release (APR), GROMACS expanded ensemble, and NAMD double decoupling submissions obtaining the greatest efficiency. The differences between the methods increase when analyzing the CB8-quinine system, where both the guest size and correlation times for system dynamics are greater. For this system, nonequilibrium switching (GROMACS/NS-DS/SB) obtained the overall highest efficiency. Surprisingly, the results suggest that specifying force field parameters and partial charges is insufficient to generally ensure reproducibility, and we observe differences between seemingly converged predictions ranging approximately from 0.3 to 1.0 kcal/mol, even with almost identical simulations parameters and system setup (e.g., Lennard-Jones cutoff, ionic composition). Further work will be required to completely identify the exact source of these discrepancies. Among the conclusions emerging from the data, we found that Hamiltonian replica exchange--while displaying very small variance--can be affected by a slowly-decaying bias that depends on the initial population of the replicas, that bidirectional estimators are significantly more efficient than unidirectional estimators for nonequilibrium free energy calculations for systems considered, and that the Berendsen barostat introduces non-negligible artifacts in expanded ensemble simulations.

biophysics↗

Accounting for Apparent Deviations between Calorimetric and van’t Hoff Enthalpies

BackgroundIn theory, binding enthalpies directly obtained from calorimetry (such as ITC) and the temperature dependence of the binding free energy (vant Hoff method) should agree. However, previous studies have often found them to be discrepant.\n\nMethodsExperimental binding enthalpies (both calorimetric and vant Hoff) are obtained for two host-guest pairs using ITC, and the discrepancy between the two enthalpies is examined. Modeling of artificial ITC data is also used to examine how different sources of error propagate to both types of binding enthalpies.\n\nResultsFor the host-guest pairs examined here, good agreement, to within about 0.4 kcal/mol, is obtained between the two enthalpies. Additionally, using artificial data, we find that different sources of error propagate to either enthalpy uniquely, with concentration error and heat error propagating primarily to calorimetric and vant Hoff enthalpies, respectively.\n\nConclusionsWith modern calorimeters, good agreement between vant Hoff and calorimetric enthalpies should be achievable, barring issues due to non-ideality or unanticipated measurement pathologies. Indeed, disagreement between the two can serve as a flag for error-prone datasets. A review of the underlying theory supports the expectation that these two quantities should be in agreement.\n\nGeneral SignificanceWe address and arguably resolve long-standing questions regarding the relationship between calorimetric and vant Hoff enthalpies. In addition, we show that comparison of these two quantities can be used as an internal consistency check of a calorimetry study.\n\nHighlightsO_LIAgreement within ~0.4 kcal/mol between calorimetric and vant Hoff enthalpies can be achieved for systems with typical heat and concentration errors, if solution non-ideality is not an issue.\nC_LIO_LIConcentration error chiefly affects calorimetric enthalpies, while error in measured heat chiefly affects vant Hoff enthalpies.\nC_LIO_LILarge discrepancies between calorimetric and vant Hoff enthalpies can be used to flag experimental error.\nC_LIO_LIThere is no theoretical basis to expect discrepancies between these two methods of determining the binding enthalpy.\nC_LI

biophysics↗