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
. 2020 Nov 23;60(11):5296-5300.
doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00285. Epub 2020 Jul 6.

Validation of Free Energy Methods in AMBER

Affiliations

Validation of Free Energy Methods in AMBER

Hsu-Chun Tsai et al. J Chem Inf Model. .

Abstract

Herein we provide high-precision validation tests of the latest GPU-accelerated free energy code in AMBER. We demonstrate that consistent free energy results are obtained in both the gas phase and in solution. We first show, in the context of thermodynamic integration (TI), that the results are invariant with respect to "split" (e.g., stepwise decharge-vdW-recharge) versus "unified" protocols. This brought to light a subtle inconsistency in previous versions of AMBER that was traced to the improper treatment of 1-4 vdW and electrostatic interactions involving atoms across the softcore boundary. We illustrate that under the assumption that the ensembles produced by different legs of the alchemical transformation between molecules A and B in the gas phase and aqueous phase are very small, the inconsistency in the relative hydration free energy ΔΔGhydr[A → B] = ΔGaq[A → B] - ΔGgas[A → B] is minimal. However, for general cases where the ensembles are shown to be substantially different, as expected in ligand-protein binding applications, these errors can be large. Finally, we demonstrate that results for relative hydration free energy simulations are independent of TI or multistate Bennett's acceptance ratio (MBAR) analysis, invariant to the specific choice of the softcore region, and in agreement with results derived from absolute hydration free energy values.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Comparison of ΔG(aq) and ΔG(gas) values (designated generically as ΔG on the axis labels) using unified and split protocols for nine transformations tabulated in Tables S3 and S4. a) Simulations using pre-AMBER18 (pA18) with values listed in Table S3, and b) current updated AMBER18 (A18*) with values listed in Table S4.
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Free energy profiles (FEPs) for acetic acid along O=C-O-H torsion angle (ϕ) in the gas phase and in solution for both real (λ=0) and dummy (λ=1) states. a) FEPs computed using pA18. b) FEPs computed using A18*. Torsion angle (ϕ) values of 0° represent cis proton configuration, and 180° represent trans proton configuration.

References

    1. Gumbart JC; Roux B; Chipot C Standard Binding Free Energies from Computer Simulations: What Is the Best Strategy? J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2013, 9, 794–802. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chipot C Frontiers in free-energy calculations of biological systems. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science 2014, 4, 71–89.
    1. Matos GDR; Kyu DY; Loeffler HH; Chodera JD; Shirts MR; Mobley DL Approaches for calculating solvation free energies and enthalpies demonstrated with an update of the FreeSolv database. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2017, 62, 1559–1569. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lee T-S; Hu Y; Sherborne B; Guo Z; York DM Toward Fast and Accurate Binding Affinity Prediction with pmemdGTI: An Efficient Implementation of GPU-Accelerated Thermodynamic Integration. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2017, 13, 3077–3084. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Giese TJ; York DM A GPU-Accelerated Parameter Interpolation Thermodynamic Integration Free Energy Method. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2018, 14, 1564–1582. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types