ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2014
Blind prediction of SAMPL4 cucurbit[7]uril binding affinities with the mining minima method.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computation of host-guest binding free energies with a new quantum mechanics based mining minima algorithm.The Journal of chemical physics · 2021Article
- Toward Understanding CB[7]-Based Supramolecular Diels-Alder Catalysis.Frontiers in chemistry · 2020Article
- Overview of the SAMPL6 host-guest binding affinity prediction challenge.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2018Article
- Predicting Binding Free Energies: Frontiers and Benchmarks.Annual review of biophysics · 2017Review
- Absolute binding free energy calculations of CBClip host-guest systems in the SAMPL5 blind challenge.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2017Article
- Recent Developments and Applications of the MMPBSA Method.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2017Review
- Binding free energies in the SAMPL5 octa-acid host-guest challenge calculated with DFT-D3 and CCSD(T).Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2017Article
- BEDAM binding free energy predictions for the SAMPL4 octa-acid host challenge.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2015Article
- Enhanced semiempirical QM methods for biomolecular interactions.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2015Review
- The SAMPL4 host-guest blind prediction challenge: an overview.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.