Methods to compute free energy differences between different states of a molecular system are reviewed with the aim of identifying their basic ingredients and their utility when applied in practice to biomolecular systems. A free energy calculation is comprised of three basic components: (i) a suitable model or Hamiltonian, (ii) a sampling protocol with which one can generate a representative ensemble of molecular configurations, and (iii) an estimator of the free energy difference itself. Alternative sampling protocols can be distinguished according to whether one or more states are to be sampled. In cases where only a single state is considered, six alternative techniques could be distinguished: (i) changing the dynamics, (ii) deforming the energy surface, (iii) extending the dimensionality, (iv) perturbing the forces, (v) reducing the number of degrees of freedom, and (vi) multi-copy approaches. In cases where multiple states are to be sampled, the three primary techniques are staging, importance sampling, and adiabatic decoupling. Estimators of the free energy can be classified as global methods that either count the number of times a given state is sampled or use energy differences. Or, they can be classified as local methods that either make use of the force or are based on transition probabilities. Finally, this overview of the available techniques and how they can be best used in a practical context is aimed at helping the reader choose the most appropriate combination of approaches for the biomolecular system, Hamiltonian and free energy difference of interest.

No abstract

The authors present a method to calculate free energy differences between two states A and B "on the fly" from a single molecular dynamics simulation of a reference state R. No computer time has to be spent on the simulation of intermediate states. Only one state is sampled, i.e., the reference state R which is designed such that the subset of phase space important to it is the union of the parts of phase space important to A and B. Therefore, an accurate estimate of the relative free energy can be obtained by construction. The authors applied the method to four test systems (dipole inversion, van der Waals interaction perturbation, charge inversion, and water to methanol conversion) and compared the results to thermodynamic integration estimates. In two cases, the enveloping distribution sampling calculation was straightforward. However, in the charge inversion and the water to methanol conversion, Hamiltonian replica-exchange molecular dynamics of the reference state was necessary to observe transitions in the reference state simulation between the parts of phase space important to A and B, respectively. This can be explained by the total absence of phase space overlap of A and B in these two cases.

A recently proposed method to obtain free energy differences for multiple end states from a single simulation of a reference state which was called enveloping distribution sampling (EDS) [J. Chem. Phys. 126, 184110 (2007)] is expanded to situations where the end state configuration space densities do not show overlap. It uses a reference state Hamiltonian suggested by Han in 1992 [Phys. Lett. A 165, 28 (1992)] in a molecular dynamics implementation. The method allows us to calculate multiple free energy differences "on the fly" from a single molecular dynamics simulation. The influence of the parameters on the accuracy and precision of the obtained free energy differences is investigated. A connection is established between the presented method and the Bennett acceptance ratio method. The method is applied to four two-state test systems (dipole inversion, van der Waals perturbation, charge inversion, and water to methanol conversion) and two multiple-state test systems [dipole inversion with five charging states and five (dis-)appearing water molecules]. Accurate results could be obtained for all test applications if the parameters of the reference state Hamiltonian were optimized according to a given algorithm. The deviations from the exact result or from an independent calculation were at most 0.6 kJ/mol. An accurate estimation of the free energy difference is always possible, independent of how different the end states are. However, the convergence times of the free energy differences are longer in cases where the end state configuration space densities do not show overlap [charge inversion, water to methanol conversion, (dis-)appearing water molecules] than in cases where the configuration space densities do show some overlap [(multiple) dipole inversion and van der Waals perturbation].

As the free energy of binding of a ligand to its target is one of the crucial optimization parameters in drug design, its accurate prediction is highly desirable. In the present study we have assessed the average accuracy of free energy calculations for a total of 92 ligands binding to five different targets. To make this study and future larger scale applications possible we automated the setup procedure. Starting from user defined binding modes, the procedure decides which ligands to connect via a perturbation based on maximum common substructure criteria and produces all necessary parameter files for free energy calculations in AMBER 11. For the systems investigated, errors due to insufficient sampling were found to be substantial in some cases whereas differences in estimators (thermodynamic integration (TI) versus multistate Bennett acceptance ratio (MBAR)) were found to be negligible. Analytical uncertainty estimates calculated from a single free energy calculation were found to be much smaller than the sample standard deviation obtained from two independent free energy calculations. Agreement with experiment was found to be system dependent ranging from excellent to mediocre (RMSE = [0.9, 8.2, 4.7, 5.7, 8.7] kJ/mol). When restricting analyses to free energy calculations with sample standard deviations below 1 kJ/mol agreement with experiment improved (RMSE = [0.8, 6.9, 1.8, 3.9, 5.6] kJ/mol).