Dataset Information

Assessment of software methods for estimating protein-protein relative binding affinities.

ABSTRACT: A growing number of computational tools have been developed to accurately and rapidly predict the impact of amino acid mutations on protein-protein relative binding affinities. Such tools have many applications, for example, designing new drugs and studying evolutionary mechanisms. In the search for accuracy, many of these methods employ expensive yet rigorous molecular dynamics simulations. By contrast, non-rigorous methods use less exhaustive statistical mechanics, allowing for more efficient calculations. However, it is unclear if such methods retain enough accuracy to replace rigorous methods in binding affinity calculations. This trade-off between accuracy and computational expense makes it difficult to determine the best method for a particular system or study. Here, eight non-rigorous computational methods were assessed using eight antibody-antigen and eight non-antibody-antigen complexes for their ability to accurately predict relative binding affinities (??G) for 654 single mutations. In addition to assessing accuracy, we analyzed the CPU cost and performance for each method using a variety of physico-chemical structural features. This allowed us to posit scenarios in which each method may be best utilized. Most methods performed worse when applied to antibody-antigen complexes compared to non-antibody-antigen complexes. Rosetta-based JayZ and EasyE methods classified mutations as destabilizing (??G < -0.5 kcal/mol) with high (83-98%) accuracy and a relatively low computational cost for non-antibody-antigen complexes. Some of the most accurate results for antibody-antigen systems came from combining molecular dynamics with FoldX with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.46, but this was also the most computationally expensive method. Overall, our results suggest these methods can be used to quickly and accurately predict stabilizing versus destabilizing mutations but are less accurate at predicting actual binding affinities. This study highlights the need for continued development of reliable, accessible, and reproducible methods for predicting binding affinities in antibody-antigen proteins and provides a recipe for using current methods.

SUBMITTER: Gonzalez TR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7751979 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of software methods for estimating protein-protein relative binding affinities.

Gonzalez Tawny R TR Martin Kyle P KP Barnes Jonathan E JE Patel Jagdish Suresh JS Ytreberg F Marty FM

PloS one 20201221 12

A growing number of computational tools have been developed to accurately and rapidly predict the impact of amino acid mutations on protein-protein relative binding affinities. Such tools have many applications, for example, designing new drugs and studying evolutionary mechanisms. In the search for accuracy, many of these methods employ expensive yet rigorous molecular dynamics simulations. By contrast, non-rigorous methods use less exhaustive statistical mechanics, allowing for more efficient ...[more]

PMID: 33347442

Similar Datasets

Project description:Predicting relative protein-ligand binding affinities is a central pillar of lead optimization efforts in structure-based drug design. The site identification by ligand competitive saturation (SILCS) methodology is based on functional group affinity patterns in the form of free energy maps that may be used to compute protein-ligand binding poses and affinities. Presented are results obtained from the SILCS methodology for a set of eight target proteins as reported originally in Wang et al. (J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2015, 137, 2695-2703) using free energy perturbation (FEP) methods in conjunction with enhanced sampling and cycle closure corrections. These eight targets have been subsequently studied by many other authors to compare the efficacy of their method while comparing with the outcomes of Wang et al. In this work, we present results for a total of 407 ligands on the eight targets and include specific analysis on the subset of 199 ligands considered previously. Using the SILCS methodology we can achieve an average accuracy of up to 77% and 74% when considering the eight targets with their 199 and 407 ligands, respectively, for rank-ordering ligand affinities as calculated by the percent correct metric. This accuracy increases to 82% and 80%, respectively, when the SILCS atomic free energy contributions are optimized using a Bayesian Markov-chain Monte Carlo approach. We also report other metrics including Pearson's correlation coefficient, Pearlman's predictive index, mean unsigned error, and root mean square error for both sets of ligands. The results obtained for the 199 ligands are compared with the outcomes of Wang et al. and other published works. Overall, the SILCS methodology yields similar or better-quality predictions without a priori need for known ligand orientations in terms of the different metrics when compared to current FEP approaches with significant computational savings while additionally offering quantitative estimates of individual atomic contributions to binding free energies. These results further validate the SILCS methodology as an accurate, computationally efficient tool to support lead optimization and drug discovery.

Dataset Information

Assessment of software methods for estimating protein-protein relative binding affinities.

Publications

Assessment of software methods for estimating protein-protein relative binding affinities.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets