ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2022
Comprehensive evaluation of end-point free energy techniques in carboxylated-pillar[6]arene host-guest binding: I. Standard procedure.
Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why Bestatin Prefers Human Carnosinase 2 (CN2) to Human Carnosinase 1 (CN1).The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2024Article
- Host Dynamics under General-Purpose Force Fields.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Revisiting MMPBSA by Adoption of MC-Based Surface Area/Volume, ANI-ML Potentials, and Two-Valued Interior Dielectric Constant.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2023Article
- Comprehensive Evaluation of End-Point Free Energy Techniques in Carboxylated-Pillar[6]arene Host-Guest Binding: III. Force-Field Comparison, Three-Trajectory Realization and Further Dielectric Augmentation.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the massive application of end-point free energy methods in protein-ligand and protein-protein interactions, computational understandings about their performance in relatively simple and prototypical host-guest systems are limited. In this work, we present a comprehensive benchmark calculation with standard end-point free energy techniques in a recent host-guest dataset containing 13 host-guest pairs involving the carboxylated-pillar[6]arene host. We first assess the charge schemes for solutes by comparing the charge-produced electrostatics with many ab initio references, in order to obtain a preliminary albeit detailed view of the charge quality. Then, we focus on four modelling details of end-point free energy calculations, including the docking procedure for the generation of initial condition, the charge scheme for host and guest molecules, the water model used in explicit-solvent sampling, and the end-point methods for free energy estimation. The binding thermodynamics obtained with different modelling schemes are compared with experimental references, and some practical guidelines on maximizing the performance of end-point methods in practical host-guest systems are summarized. Further, we compare our simulation outcome with predictions in the grand challenge and discuss further developments to improve the prediction quality of end-point free energy methods. Overall, unlike the widely acknowledged applicability in protein-ligand binding, the standard end-point calculations cannot produce useful outcomes in host-guest binding and thus are not recommended unless alterations are performed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36136209What 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.