Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27600554›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2017

Binding free energies in the SAMPL5 octa-acid host-guest challenge calculated with DFT-D3 and CCSD(T).

Octav Caldararu, Martin A Olsson, Christoph Riplinger, Frank Neese, Ulf Ryde

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Application of molecular dynamic simulations in modeling the excited state behavior of confined molecules.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Overview of the SAMPL6 host-guest binding affinity prediction challenge.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Overview of the SAMPL5 host-guest challenge: Are we doing better?Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2017
    Review
  12. 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.

Octav CaldararuDepartment of Theoretical Chemistry, Chemical Centre, Lund University, P. O. Box 124, 221 00, Lund, Sweden.
Martin A OlssonDepartment of Theoretical Chemistry, Chemical Centre, Lund University, P. O. Box 124, 221 00, Lund, Sweden.
Christoph RiplingerMax-Planck-Institut für Chemische Energiekonversion, Stiftstraße 34-36, 45470, Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany.
Frank NeeseMax-Planck-Institut für Chemische Energiekonversion, Stiftstraße 34-36, 45470, Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany.
Ulf RydeDepartment of Theoretical Chemistry, Chemical Centre, Lund University, P. O. Box 124, 221 00, Lund, Sweden. Ulf.Ryde@teokem.lu.se.ORCID 0000-0001-7653-8489

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have tried to calculate the free energy for the binding of six small ligands to two variants of the octa-acid deep cavitand host in the SAMPL5 blind challenge. We employed structures minimised with dispersion-corrected density-functional theory with small basis sets and energies were calculated using large basis sets. Solvation energies were calculated with continuum methods and thermostatistical corrections were obtained from frequencies calculated at the HF-3c level. Care was taken to minimise the effects of the flexibility of the host by keeping the complexes as symmetric and similar as possible. In some calculations, the large net charge of the host was reduced by removing the propionate and benzoate groups. In addition, the effect of a restricted molecular dynamics sampling of structures was tested. Finally, we tried to improve the energies by using the DLPNO-CCSD(T) approach. Unfortunately, results of quite poor quality were obtained, with no correlation to the experimental data, systematically too positive affinities (by ~50 kJ/mol) and a mean absolute error (after removal of the systematic error) of 11-16 kJ/mol. DLPNO-CCSD(T) did not improve the results, so the accuracy is not limited by the energy function. Instead, four likely sources of errors were identified: first, the minimised structures were often incorrect, owing to the omission of explicit solvent. They could be partly improved by performing the minimisations in a continuum solvent with four water molecules around the charged groups of the ligands. Second, some ligands could bind in several different conformations, requiring sampling of reasonable structures. Third, there is an indication the continuum-solvation model has problems to accurately describe the binding of both the negatively and positively charged guest molecules. Fourth, different methods to calculate the thermostatistical corrections gave results that differed by up to 30 kJ/mol and there is an indication that HF-3c overestimates the entropy term. In conclusion, it is a challenge to calculate binding affinities for this octa-acid system with quantum-mechanical methods.

Indexed as

LigandsMolecular Dynamics SimulationBinding SitesDrug DesignHydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsMacrocyclic CompoundsMolecular ConformationMolecular StructureProtein BindingProteinsQuantum TheorySoftwareSolventsThermodynamicsLigandsMacrocyclic CompoundsProteinsSolventsCOSMO-RSDensity-functional theoryDispersion correctionsDLPNO–CCSD(T)Host–guest systemsLigand-binding affinitiesSAMPL5

Identifiers

PMID27600554
PMCPMC5239813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.