2011
DOI: 10.1021/ct100563b
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Formal Estimation of Errors in Computed Absolute Interaction Energies of Protein−Ligand Complexes

Abstract: A largely unsolved problem in computational biochemistry is the accurate prediction of binding affinities of small ligands to protein receptors. We present a detailed analysis of the systematic and random errors present in computational methods through the use of error probability density functions, specifically for computed interaction energies between chemical fragments comprising a protein-ligand complex. An HIV-II protease crystal structure with a bound ligand (indinavir) was chosen as a model protein-liga… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
162
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 136 publications
(163 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
1
162
0
Order By: Relevance
“…10 The binding pocket was decomposed previously into a total of 21 fragments by Faver et al in their recent study, 25 for which the enzyme-ligand complex structure was obtained from the PDB, hydrogen atoms were added to the structure with the program Reduce 28 and were subsequently optimized with the AMBER FF99SB force field. 29 These 21 receptor fragments and the ligand were combined to model the binding site.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…10 The binding pocket was decomposed previously into a total of 21 fragments by Faver et al in their recent study, 25 for which the enzyme-ligand complex structure was obtained from the PDB, hydrogen atoms were added to the structure with the program Reduce 28 and were subsequently optimized with the AMBER FF99SB force field. 29 These 21 receptor fragments and the ligand were combined to model the binding site.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…24) meta-GGA (generalized gradient approximation) functional is such an appropriate level of theory. 25 Even in conjunction with the 6-31G* basis set 26 it yielded a narrow error distribution for the bound Indinavir system. We note that in spite of its relative accuracy and speed the M06-L functional has difficulty with convergence for charged systems.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…292 The 3B-69 data set is of particular interest to the discussion here, as it benchmarks molecular three-body contributions to interactions energies. 293 An interesting approach was used by Faver et al, 294 who dissected a protein−ligand complex 1HSG into 21 smaller fragment dimers bound by noncovalent interactions.…”
Section: Benchmark Databasesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While PARI-K yields impressive accuracy in its own right, the accuracy of occ-RI-K is clearly superior. The errors per electron in the absolute energies of all molecules in the test set are quite 73,74 0.00 0.00 Butanediol65 75 0.00 0.00 BzDC215 76 0.00 0.00 CT20 77 0.00 0.00 DIE60 78 0.00 0.00 DS14 79 0.00 0.01 EA13 80 0.01 0.01 EIE22 81 0.00 0.00 FmH2O10 82,83 0.01 0.16 ACONF 84,85 0.00 0.01 BHPERI 85,86 0.00 0.00 CYCONF 85,87 0.00 0.00 G21EA 85,88 0.00 0.00 G21IP 85,88 0.00 0.00 NBPRC 85 0.00 0.02 WATER27 85,89 0.00 0.03 NHTBH38 85,90 0.01 0.02 HTBH38 85,91 0.00 0.01 BH76RC 85 0.00 0.00 DBH24 86 0.00 0.01 H2O6Bind8 83,92 0.00 0.05 HB15 93 0.00 0.01 HSG 94,95 0.00 0.00 HW30 96 0.00 0.01 HW6Cl 82,83 0.00 0.04 HW6F 82,83 0.00 0.04 IP13 80 0.00 0.00 NBC10 95 0.01 0.01 NC15 97 0.00 0.00 Pentane14 98 0.00 0.01 RG10 99 0.00 0.00 S22 …”
Section: A Accuracymentioning
confidence: 99%