Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24510191›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2014

Blind prediction of SAMPL4 cucurbit[7]uril binding affinities with the mining minima method.

Hari S Muddana, Jian Yin, Neil V Sapra, Andrew T Fenley, Michael K Gilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Overview of the SAMPL6 host-guest binding affinity prediction challenge.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2018
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Recent Developments and Applications of the MMPBSA Method.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2017
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Enhanced semiempirical QM methods for biomolecular interactions.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2015
    Review
  10. The SAMPL4 host-guest blind prediction challenge: an overview.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2014
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hari S MuddanaSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, Room# 3224, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0736, USA.
Jian Yin
Neil V Sapra
Andrew T Fenley
Michael K Gilson

Funding

THEORY AND MODELING OF NONCOVALENT BINDINGR01GM061300 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MD BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE · PI GILSON, MICHAEL K. · 2000 to 2021
$7.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM61300NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM061300
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate methods for predicting protein-ligand binding affinities are of central interest to computer-aided drug design for hit identification and lead optimization. Here, we used the mining minima (M2) method to predict cucurbit[7]uril binding affinities from the SAMPL4 blind prediction challenge. We tested two different energy models, an empirical classical force field, CHARMm with VCharge charges, and the Poisson-Boltzmann surface area solvation model; and a semiempirical quantum mechanical (QM) Hamiltonian, PM6-DH+, coupled with the COSMO solvation model and a surface area term for nonpolar solvation free energy. Binding affinities based on the classical force field correlated strongly with the experiments with a correlation coefficient (R(2)) of 0.74. On the other hand, binding affinities based on the QM energy model correlated poorly with experiments (R(2) = 0.24), due largely to two major outliers. As we used extensive conformational search methods, these results point to possible inaccuracies in the PM6-DH+ energy model or the COSMO solvation model. Furthermore, the different binding free energy components, solute energy, solvation free energy, and configurational entropy showed significant deviations between the classical M2 and quantum M2 calculations. Comparison of different classical M2 free energy components to experiments show that the change in the total energy, i.e. the solute energy plus the solvation free energy, is the key driving force for binding, with a reasonable correlation to experiment (R(2) = 0.56); however, accounting for configurational entropy further improves the correlation.

Indexed as

Molecular Docking SimulationBinding SitesBridged-Ring CompoundsCucurbit(n)urilsImidazolesMacrocyclic CompoundsModels, ChemicalMolecular ConformationQuantum TheoryThermodynamicsBridged-Ring Compoundscucurbit(7)urilCucurbit(n)urilsImidazolesMacrocyclic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID24510191
PMCPMC4053532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.