Dataset Information

Hydration Free Energies in the FreeSolv Database Calculated with Polarized Iterative Hirshfeld Charges.

ABSTRACT: Computer simulations of biomolecular systems often use force fields, which are combinations of simple empirical atom-based functions to describe the molecular interactions. Even though polarizable force fields give a more detailed description of intermolecular interactions, nonpolarizable force fields, developed several decades ago, are often still preferred because of their reduced computation cost. Electrostatic interactions play a major role in biomolecular systems and are therein described by atomic point charges. In this work, we address the performance of different atomic charges to reproduce experimental hydration free energies in the FreeSolv database in combination with the GAFF force field. Atomic charges were calculated by two atoms-in-molecules approaches, Hirshfeld-I and Minimal Basis Iterative Stockholder (MBIS). To account for polarization effects, the charges were derived from the solute's electron density computed with an implicit solvent model, and the energy required to polarize the solute was added to the free energy cycle. The calculated hydration free energies were analyzed with an error model, revealing systematic errors associated with specific functional groups or chemical elements. The best agreement with the experimental data is observed for the AM1-BCC and the MBIS atomic charge methods. The latter includes the solvent polarization and presents a root-mean-square error of 2.0 kcal mol-1 for the 613 organic molecules studied. The largest deviation was observed for phosphorus-containing molecules and the molecules with amide, ester and amine functional groups.

SUBMITTER: Riquelme M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6195221 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hydration Free Energies in the FreeSolv Database Calculated with Polarized Iterative Hirshfeld Charges.

Riquelme Maximiliano M Lara Alejandro A Mobley David L DL Verstraelen Toon T Matamala Adelio R AR Vöhringer-Martinez Esteban E

Journal of chemical information and modeling 20180831 9

Computer simulations of biomolecular systems often use force fields, which are combinations of simple empirical atom-based functions to describe the molecular interactions. Even though polarizable force fields give a more detailed description of intermolecular interactions, nonpolarizable force fields, developed several decades ago, are often still preferred because of their reduced computation cost. Electrostatic interactions play a major role in biomolecular systems and are therein described b ...[more]

PMID: 30125107

Similar Datasets

Project description:We present here a greatly updated version of an earlier study on the conformational energies of protein-ligand complexes in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) [Nicklaus et al. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 1995, 3, 411-428], with the goal of improving on all possible aspects such as number and selection of ligand instances, energy calculations performed, and additional analyses conducted. Starting from about 357,000 ligand instances deposited in the 2008 version of the Ligand Expo database of the experimental 3D coordinates of all small-molecule instances in the PDB, we created a "high-quality" subset of ligand instances by various filtering steps including application of crystallographic quality criteria and structural unambiguousness. Submission of 640 Gaussian 03 jobs yielded a set of about 415 successfully concluded runs. We used a stepwise optimization of internal degrees of freedom at the DFT level of theory with the B3LYP/6-31G(d) basis set and a single-point energy calculation at B3LYP/6-311++G(3df,2p) after each round of (partial) optimization to separate energy changes due to bond length stretches vs bond angle changes vs torsion changes. Even for the most "conservative" choice of all the possible conformational energies-the energy difference between the conformation in which all internal degrees of freedom except torsions have been optimized and the fully optimized conformer-significant energy values were found. The range of 0 to ~25 kcal/mol was populated quite evenly and independently of the crystallographic resolution. A smaller number of "outliers" of yet higher energies were seen only at resolutions above 1.3 Å. The energies showed some correlation with molecular size and flexibility but not with crystallographic quality metrics such as the Cruickshank diffraction-component precision index (DPI) and R(free)-R, or with the ligand instance-specific metrics such as occupancy-weighted B-factor (OWAB), real-space R factor (RSR), and real-space correlation coefficient (RSCC). We repeated these calculations with the solvent model IEFPCM, which yielded energy differences that were generally somewhat lower than the corresponding vacuum results but did not produce a qualitatively different picture. Torsional sampling around the crystal conformation at the molecular mechanics level using the MMFF94s force field typically led to an increase in energy.

Project description:We have tried to calculate the free energy for the binding of six small ligands to two variants of the octa-acid deep cavitand host in the SAMPL5 blind challenge. We employed structures minimised with dispersion-corrected density-functional theory with small basis sets and energies were calculated using large basis sets. Solvation energies were calculated with continuum methods and thermostatistical corrections were obtained from frequencies calculated at the HF-3c level. Care was taken to minimise the effects of the flexibility of the host by keeping the complexes as symmetric and similar as possible. In some calculations, the large net charge of the host was reduced by removing the propionate and benzoate groups. In addition, the effect of a restricted molecular dynamics sampling of structures was tested. Finally, we tried to improve the energies by using the DLPNO-CCSD(T) approach. Unfortunately, results of quite poor quality were obtained, with no correlation to the experimental data, systematically too positive affinities (by ~50 kJ/mol) and a mean absolute error (after removal of the systematic error) of 11-16 kJ/mol. DLPNO-CCSD(T) did not improve the results, so the accuracy is not limited by the energy function. Instead, four likely sources of errors were identified: first, the minimised structures were often incorrect, owing to the omission of explicit solvent. They could be partly improved by performing the minimisations in a continuum solvent with four water molecules around the charged groups of the ligands. Second, some ligands could bind in several different conformations, requiring sampling of reasonable structures. Third, there is an indication the continuum-solvation model has problems to accurately describe the binding of both the negatively and positively charged guest molecules. Fourth, different methods to calculate the thermostatistical corrections gave results that differed by up to 30 kJ/mol and there is an indication that HF-3c overestimates the entropy term. In conclusion, it is a challenge to calculate binding affinities for this octa-acid system with quantum-mechanical methods.

Dataset Information

Hydration Free Energies in the FreeSolv Database Calculated with Polarized Iterative Hirshfeld Charges.

Publications

Hydration Free Energies in the FreeSolv Database Calculated with Polarized Iterative Hirshfeld Charges.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets