Influence of Grid Spacing in Poisson-Boltzmann Equation Binding Energy Estimation.

Grid-based solvers of the Poisson-Boltzmann, PB, equation are routinely used to estimate electrostatic binding, ΔΔGel, and solvation, ΔGel, free energies. The accuracies of such estimates are subject to grid discretization errors from the finite difference approximation to the PB equation. Here, we show that the grid discretization errors in ΔΔGel are more significant than those in ΔGel, and can be divided into two parts: (i) errors associated with the relative positioning of the grid and (ii) systematic errors associated with grid spacing. The systematic error in particular is significant for methods, such as the molecular mechanics PB surface area, MM-PBSA, approach that predict electrostatic binding free energies by averaging over an ensemble of molecular conformations. Although averaging over multiple conformations can control for the error associated with grid placement, it will not eliminate the systematic error, which can only be controlled by reducing grid spacing. The present study indicates that the widely-used grid spacing of 0.5 Å produces unacceptable errors in ΔΔGel, even though its predictions of ΔGel are adequate for the cases considered here. Although both grid discretization errors generally increase with grid spacing, the relative sizes of these errors differ according to the solute-solvent dielectric boundary definition. The grid discretization errors are generally smaller on the Gaussian surface used in the present study than on either the solvent-excluded or van der Waals surfaces, which both contain more surface discontinuities (e.g., sharp edges and cusps). Additionally, all three molecular surfaces converge to very different estimates of ΔΔGel.

[1]  Nathan A. Baker,et al.  PDB2PQR: an automated pipeline for the setup of Poisson-Boltzmann electrostatics calculations , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[2]  P. Kollman,et al.  An all atom force field for simulations of proteins and nucleic acids , 1986, Journal of computational chemistry.

[3]  Nathan A. Baker,et al.  Electrostatics of nanosystems: Application to microtubules and the ribosome , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  W. Sherman,et al.  Prediction of Absolute Solvation Free Energies using Molecular Dynamics Free Energy Perturbation and the OPLS Force Field. , 2010, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[5]  P. Kollman,et al.  Calculating structures and free energies of complex molecules: combining molecular mechanics and continuum models. , 2000, Accounts of chemical research.

[6]  David L Mobley,et al.  Predicting small-molecule solvation free energies: an informal blind test for computational chemistry. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  Marcia O. Fenley,et al.  Hybrid boundary element and finite difference method for solving the nonlinear Poisson–Boltzmann equation , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[8]  Marcia O. Fenley,et al.  Fast Boundary Element Method for the Linear Poisson-Boltzmann Equation , 2002 .

[9]  Huan-Xiang Zhou,et al.  Poisson-Boltzmann Calculations: van der Waals or Molecular Surface? , 2013, Communications in computational physics.

[10]  Anthony Nicholls,et al.  Application of the Gaussian dielectric boundary in Zap to the prediction of protein pKa values , 2011, Proteins.

[11]  M. Spagnuolo,et al.  Between algorithm and model: different Molecular Surface definitions for the Poisson-Boltzmann based electrostatic characterization of biomolecules in solution. , 2013, Communications in computational physics.

[12]  Michael Mascagni,et al.  Using Correlated Monte Carlo Sampling for Efficiently Solving the Linearized Poisson-Boltzmann Equation Over a Broad Range of Salt Concentration. , 2010, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[13]  B Jayaram,et al.  Revisiting the association of cationic groove-binding drugs to DNA using a Poisson-Boltzmann approach. , 2010, Biophysical journal.

[14]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[15]  J M Briggs,et al.  Electrostatic and non-electrostatic contributions to the binding free energies of anthracycline antibiotics to DNA. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[16]  Marcia O. Fenley,et al.  A new outer boundary formulation and energy corrections for the nonlinear Poisson–Boltzmann equation , 2007, J. Comput. Chem..

[17]  Alexander H Boschitsch,et al.  A Fast and Robust Poisson-Boltzmann Solver Based on Adaptive Cartesian Grids. , 2011, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[18]  Charles L. Brooks,et al.  Performance comparison of generalized born and Poisson methods in the calculation of electrostatic solvation energies for protein structures , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[19]  J. Andrew Grant,et al.  A smooth permittivity function for Poisson–Boltzmann solvation methods , 2001, J. Comput. Chem..

[20]  Michael Mascagni,et al.  Monte Carlo-based linear Poisson-Boltzmann approach makes accurate salt-dependent solvation free energy predictions possible. , 2007, The Journal of chemical physics.

[21]  Michael Mascagni,et al.  Numerical Optimization of a Walk-on-Spheres Solver for the Linear Poisson-Boltzmann Equation , 2013 .

[22]  P A Kollman,et al.  Structure and thermodynamics of RNA-protein binding: using molecular dynamics and free energy analyses to calculate the free energies of binding and conformational change. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[23]  Richard A. Friesner,et al.  What role do surfaces play in GB models? A new‐generation of surface‐generalized born model based on a novel gaussian surface for biomolecules , 2006, J. Comput. Chem..

[24]  K. Sharp,et al.  Electrostatic interactions in hirudin-thrombin binding. , 1996, Biophysical chemistry.

[25]  Huan-Xiang Zhou,et al.  Electrostatic contribution to the binding stability of protein–protein complexes , 2006, Proteins.