ArticleThe journal of physical chemistry. B2025
MnM-W-MMGBSA: A Computational Strategy to Improve Relative Binding Free Energies of Protein-Protein Interaction Systems.
Article in The journal of physical chemistry. B, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cryo-EM structure of the LARS1:IARS1 complex reveals a nutrient-responsive switch controlling mTORC1 signaling.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Exploring the toxic mechanism of cypermethrin-induced neurodegeneration diseases via network toxicology and molecular docking.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protein-protein interactions (PPIs) have become increasingly attractive as therapeutic targets due to their central role in regulating cellular functions. Despite computational advancements, accurately estimating binding free energies for PPIs remains challenging due to the dynamic and critically solvent-exposed nature of their interfaces. In this study, we present MnM-W-MMGBSA (i.e., MM-GBSA with Mix-and-Match sampling and water inclusion), a method that addresses these challenges by incorporating both conformational flexibility and interfacial solvation effects. We thoroughly demonstrated the applicability of MnM-W-MMGBSA across a diverse set of 20 PPI systems and validated its robustness using two distinct and rigorous simulation schemes. We demonstrate that our protocol improves correlation with experimental binding affinities─from 47% to 70% with MnM sampling alone for standard MM-GBSA, and up to 89% when interfacial water molecules are included. Our approach underscores the pivotal role of individual protein dynamics in validating the concept of "destabilization of individual proteins in the unbound form." Specifically, we show that in explicit solvent, such destabilization leads to a loss of native structure, suggesting that excessive conformational sampling may compromise the accuracy of binding affinity predictions. Furthermore, the critical role of intrinsically disordered regions in the interface of PPIs, as well as the impact of the MnM approach in the pairwise per-residue energy decomposition, were also investigated. Finally, our implementation overcomes the limitations of the gmx_MMPBSA tool for incorporating explicit solvent molecules from MD simulation trajectories into the complex/receptor during MM-GBSA calculation, providing an automated and reproducible workflow using GROMACS with AmberTools to enable efficient high-throughput screening of protein-protein complexes. The protocol is robust, computationally efficient, and applicable to a broad range of PPIs. Overall, our protocol offers a practical and physically meaningful alternative for estimating the binding affinities of PPIs and provides a valuable tool for advancing peptide-based drug discovery.
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.