2013
DOI: 10.1021/ct4005992
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Movable Type Method Applied to Protein–Ligand Binding

Abstract: Accurately computing the free energy for biological processes like protein folding or protein-ligand association remains a challenging problem. Both describing the complex intermolecular forces involved and sampling the requisite configuration space make understanding these processes innately difficult. Herein, we address the sampling problem using a novel methodology we term “movable type”. Conceptually it can be understood by analogy with the evolution of printing and, hence, the name movable type. For examp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
59
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
59
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the quantum methods to obtain configurational entropy, low-lying vibrational modes were treated by the free-rotor approximation, using the interpolation model implemented by Grimme [48]. The methods to derive affinities or relative affinities range from relatively established approaches, such as thermodynamic integration (TI) [49], Bennett acceptance ratio (BAR) [50], metadynamics [51], and MM/PBSA [52], to the more recently developed Movable Type method [53]. …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For the quantum methods to obtain configurational entropy, low-lying vibrational modes were treated by the free-rotor approximation, using the interpolation model implemented by Grimme [48]. The methods to derive affinities or relative affinities range from relatively established approaches, such as thermodynamic integration (TI) [49], Bennett acceptance ratio (BAR) [50], metadynamics [51], and MM/PBSA [52], to the more recently developed Movable Type method [53]. …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… APR attach-pull-release approach [60], OPC “optimal” 3-charge, 4-point rigid water model [61]; TIP3P transferable interaction potential three-point [47]; BEDAM binding energy distribution analysis method [62]; DLPNO-CCSD(T) domain based, local pair natural orbital-coupled-cluster single double and perturbative triple excitations [63]; DFT-D3 density functional theory with the latest dispersion corrections [64]; MovTyp Movable Type method [53]; SOMD single topology relative free energy calculations performed with Sire/OpenMM6.3 software [65, 66]; BAR Bennett acceptance ratio [50]; TI thermodynamic integration [49, 67]; GAFF generalized AMBER force field [68]; CGenFF CHARMM generalized force-field [69]; RESP restrained electrostatic potential [70]; OPLS-2005 optimized potentials for liquid simulations 2005 force field [71, 72]; KECSA knowledge-based and empirical combined scoring algorithm [73]; AGBNP2 analytical generalized born plus non-polar 2 [74]; COSMO-RS conductor-like screening model for real solvents [75]; MMPBSA molecular mechanics Poisson Boltzmann/solvent accessible surface area [52]. The classifications of the energy model: quantum (Q) or classical (C), as well as the solvent model: implicit (I) or explicit (E) are listed in parentheses following the name of each method…”
Section: Figmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many groups used the double decoupling or the double annihilation method with purely classical force fields or with hybrid QM/MM potentials and either Bennett acceptance ratio (BAR) [15, 103] or the multistate Bennett acceptance ratio (MBAR) [104] to estimate free energies for the aggregated simulation data. Other classes of methodologies applied to this dataset include umbrella sampling (US) [119], movable type [130], MMPBSA [110], and free energy predictions based on QM calculations.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With the same metrics, our other submissions, ‘All’, ‘BAR-MD’, ‘BAR-dock’, and ‘TI-MD’ sets ranked the 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 7th best submissions, which shows that overall performance of our methods are better than other methods. The second best result was submitted by the movable type method devised by the Mertz group [84]. While our submissions were consistently ranked near the top by RMSD and AUE metrics, our results did not correlate very strongly with experiment.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 66%