Cargando…

A Comparative Linear Interaction Energy and MM/PBSA Study on SIRT1–Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculation

[Image: see text] Binding free energy (ΔG(bind)) computation can play an important role in prioritizing compounds to be evaluated experimentally on their affinity for target proteins, yet fast and accurate ΔG(bind) calculation remains an elusive task. In this study, we compare the performance of two...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rifai, Eko Aditya, van Dijk, Marc, Vermeulen, Nico P. E., Yanuar, Arry, Geerke, Daan P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2019
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6759767/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31461271
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00609
_version_ 1783453758001250304
author Rifai, Eko Aditya
van Dijk, Marc
Vermeulen, Nico P. E.
Yanuar, Arry
Geerke, Daan P.
author_facet Rifai, Eko Aditya
van Dijk, Marc
Vermeulen, Nico P. E.
Yanuar, Arry
Geerke, Daan P.
author_sort Rifai, Eko Aditya
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] Binding free energy (ΔG(bind)) computation can play an important role in prioritizing compounds to be evaluated experimentally on their affinity for target proteins, yet fast and accurate ΔG(bind) calculation remains an elusive task. In this study, we compare the performance of two popular end-point methods, i.e., linear interaction energy (LIE) and molecular mechanics/Poisson–Boltzmann surface area (MM/PBSA), with respect to their ability to correlate calculated binding affinities of 27 thieno[3,2-d]pyrimidine-6-carboxamide-derived sirtuin 1 (SIRT1) inhibitors with experimental data. Compared with the standard single-trajectory setup of MM/PBSA, our study elucidates that LIE allows to obtain direct (“absolute”) values for SIRT1 binding free energies with lower compute requirements, while the accuracy in calculating relative values for ΔG(bind) is comparable (Pearson’s r = 0.72 and 0.64 for LIE and MM/PBSA, respectively). We also investigate the potential of combining multiple docking poses in iterative LIE models and find that Boltzmann-like weighting of outcomes of simulations starting from different poses can retrieve appropriate binding orientations. In addition, we find that in this particular case study the LIE and MM/PBSA models can be optimized by neglecting the contributions from electrostatic and polar interactions to the ΔG(bind) calculations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6759767
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67597672019-09-26 A Comparative Linear Interaction Energy and MM/PBSA Study on SIRT1–Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculation Rifai, Eko Aditya van Dijk, Marc Vermeulen, Nico P. E. Yanuar, Arry Geerke, Daan P. J Chem Inf Model [Image: see text] Binding free energy (ΔG(bind)) computation can play an important role in prioritizing compounds to be evaluated experimentally on their affinity for target proteins, yet fast and accurate ΔG(bind) calculation remains an elusive task. In this study, we compare the performance of two popular end-point methods, i.e., linear interaction energy (LIE) and molecular mechanics/Poisson–Boltzmann surface area (MM/PBSA), with respect to their ability to correlate calculated binding affinities of 27 thieno[3,2-d]pyrimidine-6-carboxamide-derived sirtuin 1 (SIRT1) inhibitors with experimental data. Compared with the standard single-trajectory setup of MM/PBSA, our study elucidates that LIE allows to obtain direct (“absolute”) values for SIRT1 binding free energies with lower compute requirements, while the accuracy in calculating relative values for ΔG(bind) is comparable (Pearson’s r = 0.72 and 0.64 for LIE and MM/PBSA, respectively). We also investigate the potential of combining multiple docking poses in iterative LIE models and find that Boltzmann-like weighting of outcomes of simulations starting from different poses can retrieve appropriate binding orientations. In addition, we find that in this particular case study the LIE and MM/PBSA models can be optimized by neglecting the contributions from electrostatic and polar interactions to the ΔG(bind) calculations. American Chemical Society 2019-08-28 2019-09-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6759767/ /pubmed/31461271 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00609 Text en Copyright © 2019 American Chemical Society This is an open access article published under a Creative Commons Non-Commercial No Derivative Works (CC-BY-NC-ND) Attribution License (http://pubs.acs.org/page/policy/authorchoice_ccbyncnd_termsofuse.html) , which permits copying and redistribution of the article, and creation of adaptations, all for non-commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Rifai, Eko Aditya
van Dijk, Marc
Vermeulen, Nico P. E.
Yanuar, Arry
Geerke, Daan P.
A Comparative Linear Interaction Energy and MM/PBSA Study on SIRT1–Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculation
title A Comparative Linear Interaction Energy and MM/PBSA Study on SIRT1–Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculation
title_full A Comparative Linear Interaction Energy and MM/PBSA Study on SIRT1–Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculation
title_fullStr A Comparative Linear Interaction Energy and MM/PBSA Study on SIRT1–Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculation
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Linear Interaction Energy and MM/PBSA Study on SIRT1–Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculation
title_short A Comparative Linear Interaction Energy and MM/PBSA Study on SIRT1–Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculation
title_sort comparative linear interaction energy and mm/pbsa study on sirt1–ligand binding free energy calculation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6759767/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31461271
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00609
work_keys_str_mv AT rifaiekoaditya acomparativelinearinteractionenergyandmmpbsastudyonsirt1ligandbindingfreeenergycalculation
AT vandijkmarc acomparativelinearinteractionenergyandmmpbsastudyonsirt1ligandbindingfreeenergycalculation
AT vermeulennicope acomparativelinearinteractionenergyandmmpbsastudyonsirt1ligandbindingfreeenergycalculation
AT yanuararry acomparativelinearinteractionenergyandmmpbsastudyonsirt1ligandbindingfreeenergycalculation
AT geerkedaanp acomparativelinearinteractionenergyandmmpbsastudyonsirt1ligandbindingfreeenergycalculation
AT rifaiekoaditya comparativelinearinteractionenergyandmmpbsastudyonsirt1ligandbindingfreeenergycalculation
AT vandijkmarc comparativelinearinteractionenergyandmmpbsastudyonsirt1ligandbindingfreeenergycalculation
AT vermeulennicope comparativelinearinteractionenergyandmmpbsastudyonsirt1ligandbindingfreeenergycalculation
AT yanuararry comparativelinearinteractionenergyandmmpbsastudyonsirt1ligandbindingfreeenergycalculation
AT geerkedaanp comparativelinearinteractionenergyandmmpbsastudyonsirt1ligandbindingfreeenergycalculation