Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27677750›Full record

ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2016

Blind prediction of cyclohexane-water distribution coefficients from the SAMPL5 challenge.

Caitlin C Bannan, Kalistyn H Burley, Michael Chiu, Michael R Shirts, Michael K Gilson, David L Mobley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing 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

64 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. An overview of the SAMPL8 host-guest binding challenge.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Automated high throughput pKJournal of computer-aided molecular design · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Evaluation of log P, pKJournal of computer-aided molecular design · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Uncertainty quantification in classical molecular dynamics.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2021
    Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Caitlin C BannanDepartment of Chemistry, University of California, 147 Bison Modular, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.
Kalistyn H BurleyDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California, 147 Bison Modular, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA.
Michael ChiuQualcomm Institute, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Michael R ShirtsChemical and Biological Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
Michael K GilsonSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
David L MobleyDepartment of Chemistry, University of California, 147 Bison Modular, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA. dmobley@mobleylab.org.ORCID 0000-0002-1083-5533

Funding

AN OPEN RESOURCE TO ADVANCE COMPUTER-AIDED DRUG DESIGNU01GM111528 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI AMARO, ROMMIE E, GILSON, MICHAEL K. · 2014 to 2018
$3.6M
Computational alchemy for molecular design and optimizationR01GM108889 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI MOBLEY, DAVID LOWELL · 2014 to 2022
$2.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM108889NIGMS NIH HHS U01 GM111528
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the recent SAMPL5 challenge, participants submitted predictions for cyclohexane/water distribution coefficients for a set of 53 small molecules. Distribution coefficients (log D) replace the hydration free energies that were a central part of the past five SAMPL challenges. A wide variety of computational methods were represented by the 76 submissions from 18 participating groups. Here, we analyze submissions by a variety of error metrics and provide details for a number of reference calculations we performed. As in the SAMPL4 challenge, we assessed the ability of participants to evaluate not just their statistical uncertainty, but their model uncertainty-how well they can predict the magnitude of their model or force field error for specific predictions. Unfortunately, this remains an area where prediction and analysis need improvement. In SAMPL4 the top performing submissions achieved a root-mean-squared error (RMSE) around 1.5 kcal/mol. If we anticipate accuracy in log D predictions to be similar to the hydration free energy predictions in SAMPL4, the expected error here would be around 1.54 log units. Only a few submissions had an RMSE below 2.5 log units in their predicted log D values. However, distribution coefficients introduced complexities not present in past SAMPL challenges, including tautomer enumeration, that are likely to be important in predicting biomolecular properties of interest to drug discovery, therefore some decrease in accuracy would be expected. Overall, the SAMPL5 distribution coefficient challenge provided great insight into the importance of modeling a variety of physical effects. We believe these types of measurements will be a promising source of data for future blind challenges, especially in view of the relatively straightforward nature of the experiments and the level of insight provided.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationCyclohexanesDrug DiscoveryModels, ChemicalMolecular StructurePharmaceutical PreparationsSmall Molecule LibrariesSolubilitySolventsThermodynamicsUncertaintyWaterCyclohexaneCyclohexanesPharmaceutical PreparationsSmall Molecule LibrariesSolventsWaterAlchemicalBlind challengeDistribution coefficientFree energyMolecular simulationSAMPL

Identifiers

PMID27677750
PMCPMC5209301

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.