Dataset Information

Surveying implicit solvent models for estimating small molecule absolute hydration free energies.

ABSTRACT: Implicit solvent models are powerful tools in accounting for the aqueous environment at a fraction of the computational expense of explicit solvent representations. Here, we compare the ability of common implicit solvent models (TC, OBC, OBC2, GBMV, GBMV2, GBSW, GBSW/MS, GBSW/MS2 and FACTS) to reproduce experimental absolute hydration free energies for a series of 499 small neutral molecules that are modeled using AMBER/GAFF parameters and AM1-BCC charges. Given optimized surface tension coefficients for scaling the surface area term in the nonpolar contribution, most implicit solvent models demonstrate reasonable agreement with extensive explicit solvent simulations (average difference 1.0-1.7 kcal/mol and R(2)=0.81-0.91) and with experimental hydration free energies (average unsigned errors=1.1-1.4 kcal/mol and R(2)=0.66-0.81). Chemical classes of compounds are identified that need further optimization of their ligand force field parameters and others that require improvement in the physical parameters of the implicit solvent models themselves. More sophisticated nonpolar models are also likely necessary to more effectively represent the underlying physics of solvation and take the quality of hydration free energies estimated from implicit solvent models to the next level.

SUBMITTER: Knight JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3142295 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Surveying implicit solvent models for estimating small molecule absolute hydration free energies.

Knight Jennifer L JL Brooks Charles L CL

Journal of computational chemistry 20110706 13

Implicit solvent models are powerful tools in accounting for the aqueous environment at a fraction of the computational expense of explicit solvent representations. Here, we compare the ability of common implicit solvent models (TC, OBC, OBC2, GBMV, GBMV2, GBSW, GBSW/MS, GBSW/MS2 and FACTS) to reproduce experimental absolute hydration free energies for a series of 499 small neutral molecules that are modeled using AMBER/GAFF parameters and AM1-BCC charges. Given optimized surface tension coeffic ...[more]

PMID: 21735452

Similar Datasets

Project description:Accurate yet efficient computational models of solvent environment are central for most calculations that rely on atomistic modeling, such as prediction of protein-ligand binding affinities. In this study, we evaluate the accuracy of a recently developed generalized Born implicit solvent model, GBNSR6 (Aguilar et al. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2010, 6, 3613-3639), in estimating the electrostatic solvation free energies (ΔG(pol)) and binding free energies (ΔΔG(pol)) for small protein-ligand complexes. We also compare estimates based on three different explicit solvent models (TIP3P, TIP4PEw, and OPC). The two main findings are as follows. First, the deviation (RMSD = 7.04 kcal/mol) of GBNSR6 binding affinities from commonly used TIP3P reference values is comparable to the deviations between explicit models themselves, e.g. TIP4PEw vs TIP3P (RMSD = 5.30 kcal/mol). A simple uniform adjustment of the atomic radii by a single scaling factor reduces the RMS deviation of GBNSR6 from TIP3P to within the above "error margin" - differences between ΔΔG(pol) estimated by different common explicit solvent models. The simple radii scaling virtually eliminates the systematic deviation (ΔΔG(pol)) between GBNSR6 and two out of the three explicit water models and significantly reduces the deviation from the third explicit model. Second, the differences between electrostatic binding energy estimates from different explicit models is disturbingly large; for example, the deviation between TIP4PEw and TIP3P estimates of ΔΔG(pol) values can be up to ∼50% or ∼9 kcal/mol, which is significantly larger than the "chemical accuracy" goal of ∼1 kcal/mol. The absolute ΔG(pol) calculated with different explicit models could differ by tens of kcal/mol. These discrepancies point to unacceptably high sensitivity of binding affinity estimates to the choice of common explicit water models. The absence of a clear "gold standard" among these models strengthens the case for the use of accurate implicit solvation models for binding energetics, which may be orders of magnitude faster.

Dataset Information

Surveying implicit solvent models for estimating small molecule absolute hydration free energies.

Publications

Surveying implicit solvent models for estimating small molecule absolute hydration free energies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets