AI Article Synopsis

  • Estimated binding affinities for three sets of ligands of heat-shock protein 90 were calculated using four methods based on five crystal structures during the D3R grand challenge blind test competition.
  • The methods included induced-fit docking with Glide software, minimization in a solvent using MM/GBSA, QM/MM calculations, and free-energy simulations via the multi-state Bennett acceptance-ratio approach.
  • Results were inconsistent, with only one method showing a correlation to experimental data above 0.7, suggesting that ligand binding modes or changes in the protein conformation may have affected predictions.

Article Abstract

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5078160PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10822-016-9942-zDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

binding affinities
12
d3r grand
8
grand challenge
8
free-energy simulations
8
crystal structures
8
docked structures
8
continuum solvent
8
molecular mechanics
8
ligands
5
binding-affinity predictions
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!