PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery· 2015Q1· Review

The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate ligand-binding affinities

Samuel Genheden, Ulf Ryde

Short summary

MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods are popular for estimating ligand-binding affinities, offering a balance between accuracy and computational cost compared to simpler or more complex methods.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods estimate ligand-binding free energy using molecular dynamics simulations.
  • They are computationally less demanding than alchemical methods but more accurate than empirical scoring.
  • These methods have been used to rationalize experimental findings and improve virtual screening.
  • Key limitations include approximations in calculating entropy and solvation, and variable performance across systems.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The molecular mechanics energies combined with the Poisson-Boltzmann or generalized Born and surface area continuum solvation (MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA) methods are popular approaches to estimate the free energy of the binding of small ligands to biological macromolecules. They are typically based on molecular dynamics simulations of the receptor-ligand complex and are therefore intermediate in both accuracy and computational effort between empirical scoring and strict alchemical perturbation methods. They have been applied to a large number of systems with varying success. AREAS COVERED: The authors review the use of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to calculate ligand-binding affinities, with an emphasis on calibration, testing and validation, as well as attempts to improve the methods, rather than on specific applications. EXPERT OPINION: MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA are attractive approaches owing to their modular nature and that they do not require calculations on a training set. They have been used successfully to reproduce and rationalize experimental findings and to improve the results of virtual screening and docking. However, they contain several crude and questionable approximations, for example, the lack of conformational entropy and information about the number and free energy of water molecules in the binding site. Moreover, there are many variants of the method and their performance varies strongly with the tested system. Likewise, most attempts to ameliorate the methods with more accurate approaches, for example, quantum-mechanical calculations, polarizable force fields or improved solvation have deteriorated the results.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery, 2015 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Computational Theory and Mathematics

Computational Theory and MathematicsComputer Science