ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2015
How to deal with multiple binding poses in alchemical relative protein-ligand binding free energy calculations.
Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Benchmarking Docking Protocols on Predicting Alternative Binding Modes.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- An Automated Workflow for Diagnosing Sampling Issues Caused by Slow Torsional Motions in Molecular Simulations.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Enhanced Sampling in the Age of Machine Learning: Algorithms and Applications.Chemical reviews · 2026Review
- Synthesis and Docking Studies of Glycolipids Inspired byMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A bottom-up approach to find lead compounds in expansive chemical spaces.Communications chemistry · 2025Article
- Pharmacophore-based virtual screening andFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Optimizing Ligand Valency to Maximize Tendon Accumulation of Peptide-Targeted Nanoparticles.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2024Article
- FEP Augmentation as a Means to Solve Data Paucity Problems for Machine Learning in Chemical Biology.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024Article
- Modern Alchemical Free Energy Methods for Drug Discovery Explained.ACS physical chemistry Au · 2023Review
- Free energies at QM accuracy from force fields via multimap targeted estimation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Rapid Rescoring and Refinement of Ligand-Receptor Complexes Using Replica Exchange Molecular Dynamics with a Monte Carlo Pose Reservoir.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2023Article
- Can Free Energy Perturbation Simulations Coupled with Replica-Exchange Molecular Dynamics Study Ligands with Distributed Binding Sites?Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2023Article
- Recent Advances in Alchemical Binding Free Energy Calculations for Drug Discovery.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2023Review
- Prioritizing Small Sets of Molecules for Synthesis through in-silico Tools: A Comparison of Common Ranking Methods.ChemMedChem · 2023Article
- Evaluating the use of absolute binding free energy in the fragment optimisation process.Communications chemistry · 2022Article
- Best practices for constructing, preparing, and evaluating protein-ligand binding affinity benchmarks [Article v0.1].Living journal of computational molecular science · 2022Article
- Sampling Conformational Changes of Bound Ligands Using Nonequilibrium Candidate Monte Carlo and Molecular Dynamics.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2020Article
- On Restraints in End-Point Protein-Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculations.Journal of computational chemistry · 2020Article
- D3R Grand Challenge 4: ligand similarity and MM-GBSA-based pose prediction and affinity ranking for BACE-1 inhibitors.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2020Article
- Absolute Protein Binding Free Energy Simulations for Ligands with Multiple Poses, a Thermodynamic Path That Avoids Exhaustive Enumeration of the Poses.Journal of computational chemistry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Recent advances in improved force fields and sampling methods have made it possible for the accurate calculation of protein–ligand binding free energies. Alchemical free energy perturbation (FEP) using an explicit solvent model is one of the most rigorous methods to calculate relative binding free energies. However, for cases where there are high energy barriers separating the relevant conformations that are important for ligand binding, the calculated free energy may depend on the initial conformation used in the simulation due to the lack of complete sampling of all the important regions in phase space. This is particularly true for ligands with multiple possible binding modes separated by high energy barriers, making it difficult to sample all relevant binding modes even with modern enhanced sampling methods. In this paper, we apply a previously developed method that provides a corrected binding free energy for ligands with multiple binding modes by combining the free energy results from multiple alchemical FEP calculations starting from all enumerated poses, and the results are compared with Glide docking and MM-GBSA calculations. From these calculations, the dominant ligand binding mode can also be predicted. We apply this method to a series of ligands that bind to c-Jun N-terminal kinase-1 (JNK1) and obtain improved free energy results. The dominant ligand binding modes predicted by this method agree with the available crystallography, while both Glide docking and MM-GBSA calculations incorrectly predict the binding modes for some ligands. The method also helps separate the force field error from the ligand sampling error, such that deviations in the predicted binding free energy from the experimental values likely indicate possible inaccuracies in the force field. An error in the force field for a subset of the ligands studied was identified using this method, and improved free energy results were obtained by correcting the partial charges assigned to the ligands. This improved the root-mean-square error (RMSE) for the predicted binding free energy from 1.9 kcal/mol with the original partial charges to 1.3 kcal/mol with the corrected partial charges.
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.