Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41999312›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2026

Comparative Assessment of Free Energy Computational Methods for Revealing the Interactions Driving PARP1 Selective Inhibition.

Alejandro Feito, Natàlia DeMoya-Valenzuela, Cristian Privat, Andrés R Tejedor, Marco DelValle-Carrillo, Sara Cembellín, Lucía Paniagua-Herranz, Adiran Garaizar, Javier Oller-Iscar, Alberto Ocana and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Antibody-drug conjugate engineering: from design to efficacy and safety.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026
    Review
  2. 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

11 authors.

Alejandro FeitoDepartment of Physical Chemistry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Av. Complutense s/n, Madrid 28040, Spain.ORCID 0009-0000-1282-7580
Natàlia DeMoya-ValenzuelaExperimental Therapeutics Unit, Hospital Clínico San Carlos (HCSC), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria San Carlos (IdISSC), Madrid 28040, Spain.
Cristian PrivatExperimental Therapeutics Unit, Hospital Clínico San Carlos (HCSC), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria San Carlos (IdISSC), Madrid 28040, Spain.
Andrés R TejedorDepartment of Physical Chemistry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Av. Complutense s/n, Madrid 28040, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9437-6169
Marco DelValle-CarrilloDepartment of Physical Chemistry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Av. Complutense s/n, Madrid 28040, Spain.
Sara CembellínDepartment of Organic Chemistry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Av. Complutense s/n, Madrid 28040, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9884-9042
Lucía Paniagua-HerranzExperimental Therapeutics Unit, Hospital Clínico San Carlos (HCSC), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria San Carlos (IdISSC), Madrid 28040, Spain.
Adiran GaraizarData Science, Bayer AG, Alfred-Nobel-Straße 50, Monheim am Rhein 40789, Germany.
Javier Oller-IscarDepartment of Physical Chemistry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Av. Complutense s/n, Madrid 28040, Spain.
Alberto OcanaExperimental Therapeutics Unit, Hospital Clínico San Carlos (HCSC), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria San Carlos (IdISSC), Madrid 28040, Spain.
Jorge R EspinosaDepartment of Physical Chemistry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Av. Complutense s/n, Madrid 28040, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9530-2658

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate prediction of inhibitor selectivity across protein paralogues remains a central challenge in computational drug discovery. Here, we perform a comparative assessment of three computational methods─Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA), Absolute Binding Free Energy (ABFE) and Umbrella Sampling (US) calculations─in their ability to recapitulate PARP1 versus PARP2 selectivity for eight clinically relevant PARP enzyme inhibitors used in ovarian, breast, and prostate tumors, among others. We demonstrate how MM/PBSA calculations offer rapid and qualitative insights but show pronounced sensitivity to the chosen static conformational pose, being particularly challenging for ligands with subtle energetic differences between distinct protein paralogues. In contrast, both ABFE and US calculations using atomistic models with explicit solvent result in substantially improved agreement with experimental binding affinities. The ABFE method exhibits the strongest quantitative correlation with experimental binding free energy differences, remarkably reproducing selectivity trends even among nearly isoenergetic complexes. Notably, our structural contact analysis reveals how contact connectivity controls ligand selectivity, providing valuable mechanistic and molecular insight into the key residues that stabilize each inhibitor in both protein enzymes. Together, our multimethod computational study contributes to elucidating potential chemical modifications across the ligand chemical space to enhance potency and specificity, informing the future design and evaluation of selective inhibitors for precision oncology, including therapies targeting homologous recombination-deficient cancers.

Indexed as

Molecular Dynamics SimulationPoly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase-1Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase InhibitorsHumansLigandsModels, MolecularProtein BindingThermodynamicsLigandsPARP1 protein, humanPoly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase-1Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID41999312
PMCPMC13169362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.