Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35639709›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2022

Modified Hamiltonian in FEP Calculations for Reducing the Computational Cost of Electrostatic Interactions.

Hiraku Oshima, Yuji Sugita

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Hiraku OshimaLaboratory for Biomolecular Function Simulation, RIKEN Center for Biosystems Dynamics Research, Integrated Innovation Building 7F, 6-7-1 Minatojima-minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo 650-0047, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-5626-1291
Yuji SugitaLaboratory for Biomolecular Function Simulation, RIKEN Center for Biosystems Dynamics Research, Integrated Innovation Building 7F, 6-7-1 Minatojima-minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo 650-0047, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-9738-9216

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The free-energy perturbation (FEP) method predicts relative and absolute free-energy changes of biomolecules in solvation and binding with other molecules. FEP is, therefore, one of the most essential tools in in silico drug design. In conventional FEP, to smoothly connect two thermodynamic states, the potential energy is modified as a linear combination of the end-state potential energies by introducing scaling factors. When the particle mesh Ewald is used for electrostatic calculations, conventional FEP requires two reciprocal-space calculations per time step, which largely decreases the computational performance. To overcome this problem, we propose a new FEP scheme by introducing a modified Hamiltonian instead of interpolation of the end-state potential energies. The scheme introduces nonuniform scaling into the electrostatic potential as used in Replica Exchange with Solute Tempering 2 (REST2) and does not require additional reciprocal-space calculations. We tested this modified Hamiltonian in FEP calculations in several biomolecular systems. In all cases, the calculated free-energy changes with the current scheme are in good agreement with those from conventional FEP. The modified Hamiltonian in FEP greatly improves the computational performance, which is particularly marked for large biomolecular systems whose reciprocal-space calculations are the major bottleneck of total computational time.

Indexed as

Drug DesignEntropyStatic ElectricityThermodynamics

Identifiers

PMID35639709
PMCPMC9199518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.