MyMedR

Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Benchmarking the performance of MM/PBSA in virtual screening enrichment using the GPCR-Bench dataset

Yau MQ, Emtage AL, Loo JSE

J Comput Aided Mol Des, 2020 Nov;34(11):1133-1145.
PMID: 32851579 DOI: 10.1007/s10822-020-00339-5

Recent breakthroughs in G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) crystallography and the subsequent increase in number of solved GPCR structures has allowed for the unprecedented opportunity to utilize their experimental structures for structure-based drug discovery applications. As virtual screening represents one of the primary computational methods used for the discovery of novel leads, the GPCR-Bench dataset was created to facilitate comparison among various virtual screening protocols. In this study, we have benchmarked the performance of Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA) in improving virtual screening enrichment in comparison to docking with Glide, using the entire GPCR-Bench dataset of 24 GPCR targets and 254,646 actives and decoys. Reranking the top 10% of the docked dataset using MM/PBSA resulted in improvements for six targets at EF1% and nine targets at EF5%, with the gains in enrichment being more pronounced at the EF1% level. We additionally assessed the utility of rescoring the top ten poses from docking and the ability of short MD simulations to refine the binding poses prior to MM/PBSA calculations. There was no clear trend of the benefit observed in both cases, suggesting that utilizing a single energy minimized structure for MM/PBSA calculations may be the most computationally efficient approach in virtual screening. Overall, the performance of MM/PBSA rescoring in improving virtual screening enrichment obtained from docking of the GPCR-Bench dataset was found to be relatively modest and target-specific, highlighting the need for validation of MM/PBSA-based protocols prior to prospective use.
A head-to-head comparison of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA in predicting binding affinities for the CB1 cannabinoid ligands

Yau MQ, Liew CWY, Toh JH, Loo JSE

J Mol Model, 2024 Oct 31;30(11):390.
PMID: 39480515 DOI: 10.1007/s00894-024-06189-4

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.
Evaluating the performance of MM/PBSA for binding affinity prediction using class A GPCR crystal structures

Yau MQ, Emtage AL, Chan NJY, Doughty SW, Loo JSE

J Comput Aided Mol Des, 2019 05;33(5):487-496.
PMID: 30989574 DOI: 10.1007/s10822-019-00201-3

The recent expansion of GPCR crystal structures provides the opportunity to assess the performance of structure-based drug design methods for the GPCR superfamily. Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA)-based methods are commonly used for binding affinity prediction, as they provide an intermediate compromise of speed and accuracy between the empirical scoring functions used in docking and more robust free energy perturbation methods. In this study, we systematically assessed the performance of MM/PBSA in predicting experimental binding free energies using twenty Class A GPCR crystal structures and 934 known ligands. Correlations between predicted and experimental binding free energies varied significantly between individual targets, ranging from r = - 0.334 in the inactive-state CB1 cannabinoid receptor to r = 0.781 in the active-state CB1 cannabinoid receptor, while average correlation across all twenty targets was relatively poor (r = 0.183). MM/PBSA provided better predictions of binding free energies compared to docking scores in eight out of the twenty GPCR targets while performing worse for four targets. MM/PBSA binding affinity predictions calculated using a single, energy minimized structure provided comparable predictions to sampling from molecular dynamics simulations and may be more efficient when computational cost becomes restrictive. Additionally, we observed that restricting MM/PBSA calculations to ligands with a high degree of structural similarity to the crystal structure ligands improved performance in several cases. In conclusion, while MM/PBSA remains a valuable tool for GPCR structure-based drug design, its performance in predicting the binding free energies of GPCR ligands remains highly system-specific as demonstrated in a subset of twenty Class A GPCRs, and validation of MM/PBSA-based methods for each individual case is recommended before prospective use.
Leveraging binding pose metadynamics to optimise target fishing predictions for three diverse ligands and their true targets

Yau MQ, Wan AJ, Tiong ASH, Yiap YS, Loo JSE

Chem Biol Drug Des, 2024 Jul;104(1):e14591.
PMID: 39010276 DOI: 10.1111/cbdd.14591

Computational target fishing plays an important role in target identification, particularly in drug discovery campaigns utilizing phenotypic screening. Numerous approaches exist to predict potential targets for a given ligand, but true targets may be inconsistently ranked. More advanced simulation methods may provide benefit in such cases by reranking these initial predictions. We evaluated the ability of binding pose metadynamics to improve the predicted rankings for three diverse ligands and their six true targets. Initial predictions using pharmacophore mapping showed no true targets ranked in the top 50 and two targets each ranked within the 50-100, 100-150, and 250-300 ranges respectively. Following binding pose metadynamics, ranking of true targets improved for four out of the six targets and included the highest ranked predictions overall, while rankings deteriorated for two targets. The revised rankings predicted two true targets ranked within the top 50, and one target each within the 50-100, 100-150, 150-200, and 200-250 ranges respectively. The findings of this study demonstrate that binding pose metadynamics may be of benefit in refining initial predictions from structure-based target fishing algorithms, thereby improving the efficiency of the target identification process in drug discovery efforts.