Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Feb;19(1):56-61.
doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2008.11.009. Epub 2009 Jan 21.

Computational evaluation of protein-small molecule binding

Affiliations

Computational evaluation of protein-small molecule binding

Olgun Guvench et al. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2009 Feb.

Abstract

Determining protein-small molecule binding affinity is a key component of present-day rational drug discovery. To circumvent the time, labor, and materials costs associated with experimental protein-small molecule binding assays, a variety of structure-based computational methods have been developed for determining protein-small molecule binding affinities. These methods can be placed in one of two classes: accurate but slow (Class 1), and fast but approximate (Class 2). Class 1 methods, which explicitly take into account protein flexibility and include an atomic-level description of solvation, are capable of quantitatively reproducing experimental protein-small molecule absolute binding free energies. However, Class 1 computational requirements make screening thousands to millions of small molecules against a protein, as required for rational drug design, infeasible for the foreseeable future. Class 2 methods, on the contrary, are sufficiently fast to perform such inhibitor screening, yet they suffer from limited descriptions of protein flexibility and solvation, which in turn limit their ability to select and rank-order small molecules by computed binding affinities. This review presents an overview of Class 1 and Class 2 methods, and avenues of research in Class 2 methods aimed at bringing them closer to Class 1 accuracy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic view of Class 1 (a) annihilation and (b) separation simulations. In both simulations, all atoms in the system, including water molecules (“H2O”) are explicitly represented. The protein is in purple and the small molecule in white. A dashed outline of the small molecule indicates interactions of the small molecule with the rest of the system (protein + water) have been decoupled, such that the small molecule is effectively “invisible” to the rest of the system.

References

    1. Karplus M, McCammon JA. Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules. Nature Structural Biology. 2002;9:646–652. - PubMed
    1. Adcock SA, McCammon JA. Molecular dynamics: Survey of methods for simulating the activity of proteins. Chemical Reviews. 2006;106:1589–1615. - PMC - PubMed
    1. MacKerell AD., Jr Empirical force fields for biological macromolecules: overview and issues. Journal Of Computational Chemistry. 2004;25:1584–1604. - PubMed
    1. Guvench O, MacKerell AD. Comparison of protein force fields for molecular dynamics simulations. In: Kukol A, editor. Molecular Modeling of Proteins. Humana Press, Inc.; 2008. pp. 63–88. Methods in Molecular Biology. - PubMed
    1. Tuckerman ME, Martyna GJ. Understanding modern molecular dynamics: Techniques and applications. Journal of Physical Chemistry B. 2000;104:159–178.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources