No abstract

The voltammetric response of a Ag(111) electrode coated with a mixed molecular film of 11-mercaptoundecanoic acid and 1-decanethiol is presented. The voltammetric current arises from the reversible, electric field-driven deprotonation of carboxylic acid groups. Voltammetric peak heights for interfacial protonation and deprotonation are a function of solution pH, obtaining maximum values near the pK 1/2 (∼8.5) of the molecular film.

Solvated interaction energy (SIE) is an end-point physics-based scoring function for predicting binding affinities from force-field nonbonded interaction terms, continuum solvation, and configurational entropy linear compensation. We tested the SIE function in the Community Structure–Activity Resource (CSAR) scoring challenge consisting of high-resolution cocrystal structures for 343 protein–ligand complexes with high-quality binding affinity data and high diversity with respect to protein targets. Particular emphasis was placed on the sensitivity of SIE predictions to the assignment of protonation and tautomeric states in the complex and the treatment of metal ions near the protein–ligand interface. These were manually curated from an originally distributed CSAR-HiQ data set version, leading to the currently distributed CSAR-NRC-HiQ version. We found that this manual curation was a critical step for accurately testing the performance of the SIE function. The standard SIE parametrization, previously calibrated on an independent data set, predicted absolute binding affinities with a mean-unsigned-error (MUE) of 2.41 kcal/mol for the CSAR-HiQ version, which improved to 1.98 kcal/mol for the upgraded CSAR-NRC-HiQ version. Half–half retraining-testing of SIE parameters on two predefined subsets of CSAR-NRC-HiQ led to only marginal further improvements to an MUE of 1.83 kcal/mol. Hence, we do not recommend altering the current default parameters of SIE at this time. For a sample of SIE outliers, additional calculations by molecular dynamics-based SIE averaging with or without incorporation of ligand strain, by MM-PB(GB)/SA methods with or without entropic estimates, or even by the linear interaction energy (LIE) formalism with an explicit solvent model, did not further improve predictions.