Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26216222›Full record

ArticleJournal of computational chemistry2015

Comparison of radii sets, entropy, QM methods, and sampling on MM-PBSA, MM-GBSA, and QM/MM-GBSA ligand binding energies of F. tularensis enoyl-ACP reductase (FabI).

Pin-Chih Su, Cheng-Chieh Tsai, Shahila Mehboob, Kirk E Hevener, Michael E Johnson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computational chemistry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 126 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Modeling of Transmembrane Domain and Full-Length TLRs in Membrane Models.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pin-Chih SuCenter for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 60607.
Cheng-Chieh TsaiCenter for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 60607.
Shahila MehboobCenter for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 60607.
Kirk E HevenerCenter for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 60607.
Michael E JohnsonCenter for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 60607.
University of Illinois Chicago · US

Funding

Novel antiobiotic development for biodefenseU01AI077949 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI JOHNSON, MICHAEL E. · 2009 to 2010
$4.0M
Multidisciplinary Oral Science TrainingT32DE018381 · NIDCR · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI COOPER, LYNDON F · 2008 to 2019
$3.6M
Development of Novel S. aureus Antibiotics with Reduced Resistance SusceptibilityR41AI110090 · NIAID · NOVALEX THERAPEUTICS, INC. · PI CHRISTIE, SHAHILA MEHBOOB, JOHNSON, MICHAEL E. · 2014 to 2015
$597k
NIAID NIH HHS R41 AI110090NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI077949NIDCR NIH HHS 5T32-DE018381NIDCR NIH HHS T32 DE018381
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To validate a method for predicting the binding affinities of FabI inhibitors, three implicit solvent methods, MM-PBSA, MM-GBSA, and QM/MM-GBSA were carefully compared using 16 benzimidazole inhibitors in complex with Francisella tularensis FabI. The data suggests that the prediction results are sensitive to radii sets, GB methods, QM Hamiltonians, sampling protocols, and simulation length, if only one simulation trajectory is used for each ligand. In this case, QM/MM-GBSA using 6 ns MD simulation trajectories together with GB(neck2) , PM3, and the mbondi2 radii set, generate the closest agreement with experimental values (r(2)  = 0.88). However, if the three implicit solvent methods are averaged from six 1 ns MD simulations for each ligand (called "multiple independent sampling"), the prediction results are relatively insensitive to all the tested parameters. Moreover, MM/GBSA together with GB(HCT) and mbondi, using 600 frames extracted evenly from six 0.25 ns MD simulations, can also provide accurate prediction to experimental values (r(2)  = 0.84). Therefore, the multiple independent sampling method can be more efficient than a single, long simulation method. Since future scaffold expansions may significantly change the benzimidazole's physiochemical properties (charges, etc.) and possibly binding modes, which may affect the sensitivities of various parameters, the relatively insensitive "multiple independent sampling method" may avoid the need of an entirely new validation study. Moreover, due to large fluctuating entropy values, (QM/)MM-P(G)BSA were limited to inhibitors' relative affinity prediction, but not the absolute affinity. The developed protocol will support an ongoing benzimidazole lead optimization program.

Indexed as

BenzimidazolesDrug DesignEnoyl-(Acyl-Carrier-Protein) Reductase (NADH)EntropyEnzyme InhibitorsFrancisella tularensisHumansLigandsMolecular Dynamics SimulationProtein BindingTularemiabenzimidazoleBenzimidazolesEnoyl-(Acyl-Carrier-Protein) Reductase (NADH)Enzyme InhibitorsLigandsenoyl acyl reductase (FabI), implicit solvent modelsmolecular dynamicsquantum mechanics/molecular mechanicsradii sets

Identifiers

PMID26216222
PMCPMC4688044
OpenAlexW2120988271

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.