ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2023
Comparison of Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Approaches for Relative Binding Free Energy Predictions.
Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward Relative Redox Potential Predictions in Flavoproteins: Treatment of a Charge-Changing Mutation in Alchemical Free Energy Simulations.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2026Article
- Smoother Alchemical Transformations via Enveloping Distribution Sampling for Free-Energy Estimation.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2026Article
- NEMAT: An Automated Nonequilibrium Free-Energy Framework for Predicting Ligand Affinity in Membrane Proteins.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- Free energy calculations in molecular modeling: from classical methods to machine learning.Journal of molecular modeling · 2026Review
- Ensemble molecular dynamics for predicting binding energies of DNA intercalators.RSC advances · 2026Article
- Rapid, accurate, and reproduciblemSphere · 2025Article
- Decoding allosteric landscapes: computational methodologies for enzyme modulation and drug discovery.RSC chemical biology · 2025Review
- Impact of Varying Velocities and Solvation Boxes on Alchemical Free-Energy Simulations.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
- Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Ensemble Methods for Accurate, Precise and Reproducible Absolute Binding Free Energy Calculations.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2025Article
- Automated Adaptive Absolute Binding Free Energy Calculations.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2024Article
- Multistate Method to Efficiently Account for Tautomerism and Protonation in Alchemical Free-Energy Calculations.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2024Article
- Ensemble-Based Approaches Ensure Reliability and Reproducibility.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Alchemical relative binding free energy calculations have recently found important applications in drug optimization. A series of congeneric compounds are generated from a preidentified lead compound, and their relative binding affinities to a protein are assessed in order to optimize candidate drugs. While methods based on equilibrium thermodynamics have been extensively studied, an approach based on nonequilibrium methods has recently been reported together with claims of its superiority. However, these claims pay insufficient attention to the basis and reliability of both methods. Here we report a comparative study of the two approaches across a large data set, comprising more than 500 ligand transformations spanning in excess of 300 ligands binding to a set of 14 diverse protein targets. Ensemble methods are essential to quantify the uncertainty in these calculations, not only for the reasons already established in the equilibrium approach but also to ensure that the nonequilibrium calculations reside within their domain of validity. If and only if ensemble methods are applied, we find that the nonequilibrium method can achieve accuracy and precision comparable to those of the equilibrium approach. Compared to the equilibrium method, the nonequilibrium approach can reduce computational costs but introduces higher computational complexity and longer wall clock times. There are, however, cases where the standard length of a nonequilibrium transition is not sufficient, necessitating a complete rerun of the entire set of transitions. This significantly increases the computational cost and proves to be highly inconvenient during large-scale applications. Our findings provide a key set of recommendations that should be adopted for the reliable implementation of nonequilibrium approaches to relative binding free energy calculations in ligand-protein systems.
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.