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
. 2025 Feb 24;65(4):2107-2115.
doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.4c02236. Epub 2025 Jan 31.

Impact of Varying Velocities and Solvation Boxes on Alchemical Free-Energy Simulations

Affiliations

Impact of Varying Velocities and Solvation Boxes on Alchemical Free-Energy Simulations

Meiting Wang et al. J Chem Inf Model. .

Abstract

Alchemical free-energy perturbation (FEP) is an accurate and thermodynamically stringent way to estimate relative energies for the binding of small ligands to biological macromolecules. It has repeatedly been pointed out that a single simulation normally stays near the starting point in phase space and therefore underestimates the uncertainty of the results. Therefore, it is better to run an ensemble of independent simulations. Traditionally, such an ensemble has been generated by using different starting velocities. We argue that it is better to use also other random choices made during the setup of the simulations, in particular the solvation of the solute. We show here that such solvent-induced independent simulations (SIS) sometimes give a larger standard deviation and slightly different results for the binding of 42 ligands to five different proteins, viz. human N-terminal bromodomain 4, the Leu99Ala mutant of T4 lysozyme, dihydrofolate reductase, blood-clotting factor Xa, and ferritin. SIS does not involve any increase in the time consumption. Therefore, we strongly recommend the use of SIS (in addition to different velocities) to start independent simulations. Other random or uncertain choices in the setup of the simulated systems, e.g., the selection of residues with alternative conformations or positions of added protons, may also be used to enhance the variation in independent simulations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic structures of the two proteins and structure formulas of the ligands. For the BRD4 ligands, all ligands have the same general scaffold (right) and only the R-group is varied (left; the pink line shows where the ring systems are connected to the scaffold).

Similar articles

References

    1. Gohlke H.; Klebe G. Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2002, 41, 2644–2676. 10.1002/1521-3773(20020802)41:15<2644::AID-ANIE2644>3.0.CO;2-O. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jorgensen W. L. Efficient Drug Lead Discovery and Optimization. Acc. Chem. Res. 2009, 42, 724–733. 10.1021/ar800236t. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kontoyianni M.; Madhav P.; Suchanek E. S.; Seibel W. Theoretical and Practical Considerations in Virtual Screening: A Beaten Field?. Curr. Med. Chem. 2008, 15, 107–116. 10.2174/092986708783330566. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pinzi L.; Rastelli G. Molecular Docking: Shifting Paradigms in Drug Discovery. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 4331.10.3390/ijms20184331. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kollman P. A.; Massova I.; Reyes C. M.; Kuhn B.; Huo S.; Chong L.; Lee M. C.; Lee T.; Duan Y.; Wang W.; Donini O.; Cieplak P.; Srinivasan J.; Case D. A.; Cheatham T. E. Calculating Structures and Free Energies of Complex Molecules: Combining Molecular Mechanics and Continuum Models. Acc. Chem. Res. 2000, 33, 889–897. 10.1021/ar000033j. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources