ArticleJournal of molecular modeling2017
How accurate is the description of ligand-protein interactions by a hybrid QM/MM approach?
Article in Journal of molecular modeling, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Batzelladine D, a Marine Natural Product, Reverses the Fluconazole Resistance Phenotype Mediated by Transmembrane Transporters inMarine drugs · 2024Article
- A journey from molecule to physiology andFrontiers in pharmacology · 2023Review
- Virtual Screening ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- GC-MS profiling of Bauhinia variegata major phytoconstituents with computational identification of potential lead inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 MComputers in biology and medicine · 2022Article
- Novel B, C-ring truncated deguelin derivatives reveals as potential inhibitors of cyclin D1 and cyclin E using molecular docking and molecular dynamic simulation.Molecular diversity · 2022Article
- Article
- QM/MM Energy Decomposition Using the Interacting Quantum Atoms Approach.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
During the last decades, the application of hybrid quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) methods has been extended to the field of drug design. In principle, the approximate QM/MM approach offers a more complete description of drug-receptor non-covalent interactions. This is especially true when charge or proton transfer, chelation of metal ions or strong polarization of ligand and protein or surface chemical groups are involved. The aim of this work was to assess the accuracy of calculated non-covalent ligand-protein interaction energies ([Formula: see text]) obtained by the hybrid QM/MM approach employed in QSite/Jaguar of Schrödinger's Small-Molecule Drug Discovery Suite on a set of small-molecule model systems when compared to rigorous QM calculations. The QM/MM approach was used at the density functional theory (DFT) level of theory with 6-31G* basis set, hybrid B3LYP functional and OPLS-2005 force field (DFT-B3LYP/6-31G*//OPLS-2005), a popular combination frequently used in studies on larger and complex biological systems such as drug-receptor complexes. In this work, we did not attempt to compute the most precise interaction energies of the model systems. We rather tried to assess the performance of the approximate QM/MM vs. full QM approach at the same computationally accessible level. For effective use of the QM/MM approach it is essential to select an appropriate QM region of the studied systems. To aid the selection of specific protein residues or functional groups to be included in the QM region, we evaluated the effect of its size, composition and symmetry on the accuracy of the QM/MM calculated [Formula: see text]. This was performed by means of a set of model clusters with well-defined configurations, which mimic the basic types of non-covalent interactions in proteins. Based on these systematic quantitative comparisons, recommendations for the addition of chemical groups or protein residues into the QM region are proposed for the popular DFT-B3LYP/6-31G*//OPLS-2005 QM/MM approach, leading to a more realistic description of ligand-protein interactions. These guidelines can have a significant bearing on computational drug or material research employing hybrid QM/MM methods by providing an estimate of the accuracy that can be expected from QM/MM studies. Graphical abstract An approximate hybrid QM/MM approach at the DFT-B3LYP/6-31G*//OPLS-2005 level was systematically assessed for the accuracy of description of non-covalent interactions on a series of six small-molecule model systems using the QSite and Jaguar modules of Schrödinger. Guidelines for rational selection of receptor residues or function groups to be included in the QM region around the ligand were proposed based on the achieved accuracy of computed ligand-protein interaction energies obtained by QM/MM vs. the full QM approach.
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.