The SAMPL4 host–guest blind prediction challenge: an overview

Prospective validation of methods for computing binding affinities can help assess their predictive power and thus set reasonable expectations for their performance in drug design applications. Supramolecular host–guest systems are excellent model systems for testing such affinity prediction methods, because their small size and limited conformational flexibility, relative to proteins, allows higher throughput and better numerical convergence. The SAMPL4 prediction challenge therefore included a series of host–guest systems, based on two hosts, cucurbit[7]uril and octa-acid. Binding affinities in aqueous solution were measured experimentally for a total of 23 guest molecules. Participants submitted 35 sets of computational predictions for these host–guest systems, based on methods ranging from simple docking, to extensive free energy simulations, to quantum mechanical calculations. Over half of the predictions provided better correlations with experiment than two simple null models, but most methods underperformed the null models in terms of root mean squared error and linear regression slope. Interestingly, the overall performance across all SAMPL4 submissions was similar to that for the prior SAMPL3 host–guest challenge, although the experimentalists took steps to simplify the current challenge. While some methods performed fairly consistently across both hosts, no single approach emerged as consistent top performer, and the nonsystematic nature of the various submissions made it impossible to draw definitive conclusions regarding the best choices of energy models or sampling algorithms. Salt effects emerged as an issue in the calculation of absolute binding affinities of cucurbit[7]uril-guest systems, but were not expected to affect the relative affinities significantly. Useful directions for future rounds of the challenge might involve encouraging participants to carry out some calculations that replicate each others’ studies, and to systematically explore parameter options.

[1]  Anthony Nicholls,et al.  SAMPL2 challenge: prediction of solvation energies and tautomer ratios , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[2]  Jindřich Fanfrlík,et al.  Semiempirical Quantum Chemical PM6 Method Augmented by Dispersion and H-Bonding Correction Terms Reliably Describes Various Types of Noncovalent Complexes. , 2009, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[3]  Brian K. Shoichet,et al.  Ligand Pose and Orientational Sampling in Molecular Docking , 2013, PloS one.

[4]  Gerhard König,et al.  Non‐Boltzmann sampling and Bennett's acceptance ratio method: How to profit from bending the rules , 2011, J. Comput. Chem..

[5]  Emilio Gallicchio,et al.  The AGBNP2 Implicit Solvation Model. , 2009, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[6]  C. E. Peishoff,et al.  A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  A. Klamt Conductor-like Screening Model for Real Solvents: A New Approach to the Quantitative Calculation of Solvation Phenomena , 1995 .

[8]  P. Kollman,et al.  A well-behaved electrostatic potential-based method using charge restraints for deriving atomic char , 1993 .

[9]  Stefan Grimme,et al.  Corrected small basis set Hartree‐Fock method for large systems , 2013, J. Comput. Chem..

[10]  Ricardo A. Mata,et al.  Free-energy perturbation and quantum mechanical study of SAMPL4 octa-acid host–guest binding energies , 2014, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[11]  S. Grimme Density functional theory with London dispersion corrections , 2011 .

[12]  Michael K. Gilson,et al.  Tork: Conformational analysis method for molecules and complexes , 2003, J. Comput. Chem..

[13]  Peter A. Kollman,et al.  Hydrophobic solvation of methane and nonbond parameters of the TIP3P water model , 1995, J. Comput. Chem..

[14]  Corinne L. D. Gibb,et al.  Binding of cyclic carboxylates to octa-acid deep-cavity cavitand , 2014, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[15]  Emilio Gallicchio,et al.  The Binding Energy Distribution Analysis Method (BEDAM) for the Estimation of Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities. , 2010, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[16]  Michael K Gilson,et al.  New ultrahigh affinity host-guest complexes of cucurbit[7]uril with bicyclo[2.2.2]octane and adamantane guests: thermodynamic analysis and evaluation of M2 affinity calculations. , 2011, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[17]  B. Gibb,et al.  Well-defined, organic nanoenvironments in water: the hydrophobic effect drives a capsular assembly. , 2004, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[18]  R. Swendsen,et al.  THE weighted histogram analysis method for free‐energy calculations on biomolecules. I. The method , 1992 .

[19]  Andrew T. Fenley,et al.  The electrostatic response of water to neutral polar solutes: implications for continuum solvent modeling. , 2013, The Journal of chemical physics.

[20]  KumarShankar,et al.  The weighted histogram analysis method for free-energy calculations on biomolecules. I , 1992 .

[21]  Richard D. Smith,et al.  CSAR Data Set Release 2012: Ligands, Affinities, Complexes, and Docking Decoys , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[22]  Pengyu Y. Ren,et al.  Polarizable Atomic Multipole Water Model for Molecular Mechanics Simulation , 2003 .

[23]  K. Sharp,et al.  Accurate Calculation of Hydration Free Energies Using Macroscopic Solvent Models , 1994 .

[24]  R. Zwanzig High‐Temperature Equation of State by a Perturbation Method. I. Nonpolar Gases , 1954 .

[25]  Michael K Gilson,et al.  Grid inhomogeneous solvation theory: hydration structure and thermodynamics of the miniature receptor cucurbit[7]uril. , 2012, The Journal of chemical physics.

[26]  Wei Yang,et al.  Practically Efficient and Robust Free Energy Calculations: Double-Integration Orthogonal Space Tempering. , 2012, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[27]  Michael K. Gilson,et al.  A synthetic host-guest system achieves avidin-biotin affinity by overcoming enthalpy–entropy compensation , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  S. Grimme Supramolecular binding thermodynamics by dispersion-corrected density functional theory. , 2012, Chemistry.

[29]  Greg L. Hura,et al.  Development of an improved four-site water model for biomolecular simulations: TIP4P-Ew. , 2004, The Journal of chemical physics.

[30]  J. Nielsen,et al.  The pKa Cooperative: A collaborative effort to advance structure‐based calculations of pKa values and electrostatic effects in proteins , 2011, Proteins.

[31]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

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

[33]  M. Gilson,et al.  Calculation of Host-Guest Binding Affinities Using a Quantum-Mechanical Energy Model. , 2012, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[34]  I. Kuntz,et al.  The maximal affinity of ligands. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  Krzysztof Fidelis,et al.  CASP prediction center infrastructure and evaluation measures in CASP10 and CASP ROLL , 2014, Proteins.

[36]  A. Lyubartsev,et al.  New approach to Monte Carlo calculation of the free energy: Method of expanded ensembles , 1992 .

[37]  Margaret E. Johnson,et al.  Current status of the AMOEBA polarizable force field. , 2010, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[38]  Michael R. Shirts,et al.  Converging free energies of binding in cucurbit[7]uril and octa-acid host–guest systems from SAMPL4 using expanded ensemble simulations , 2014, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[39]  Shuai Liu,et al.  Blind prediction of HIV integrase binding from the SAMPL4 challenge , 2014, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[40]  W. L. Jorgensen,et al.  Development and Testing of the OPLS All-Atom Force Field on Conformational Energetics and Properties of Organic Liquids , 1996 .

[41]  Pär Söderhjelm,et al.  Prediction of SAMPL4 host–guest binding affinities using funnel metadynamics , 2014, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[42]  A. Geoffrey Skillman,et al.  SAMPL3: blinded prediction of host–guest binding affinities, hydration free energies, and trypsin inhibitors , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[43]  Martin Korth,et al.  Third-Generation Hydrogen-Bonding Corrections for Semiempirical QM Methods and Force Fields , 2010 .

[44]  Winston Ong,et al.  Salt effects on the apparent stability of the cucurbit[7]uril-methyl viologen inclusion complex. , 2004, The Journal of organic chemistry.

[45]  A. Klamt,et al.  COSMO : a new approach to dielectric screening in solvents with explicit expressions for the screening energy and its gradient , 1993 .

[46]  Peter A. Kollman,et al.  FREE ENERGY CALCULATIONS : APPLICATIONS TO CHEMICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL PHENOMENA , 1993 .

[47]  J. Guthrie,et al.  A blind challenge for computational solvation free energies: introduction and overview. , 2009, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[48]  M. Gilson,et al.  Calculation of protein-ligand binding affinities. , 2007, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[49]  Junmei Wang,et al.  Development and testing of a general amber force field , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[50]  M. Gilson,et al.  Calculation of cyclodextrin binding affinities: energy, entropy, and implications for drug design. , 2004, Biophysical journal.

[51]  David L. Mobley,et al.  Blind prediction of solvation free energies from the SAMPL4 challenge , 2014, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[52]  W. L. Jorgensen,et al.  Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water , 1983 .

[53]  Irwin Oppenheim,et al.  Statistical Mechanical Theory of Transport Processes. VII. The Coefficient of Thermal Conductivity of Monatomic Liquids , 1954 .

[54]  Oren A Scherman,et al.  Release of high-energy water as an essential driving force for the high-affinity binding of cucurbit[n]urils. , 2012, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[55]  Lyle Isaacs,et al.  The cucurbit[n]uril family: prime components for self-sorting systems. , 2005, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[56]  César Augusto F. de Oliveira,et al.  On the Role of Dewetting Transitions in Host–Guest Binding Free Energy Calculations , 2012, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[57]  Anthony Nicholls,et al.  The SAMPL2 blind prediction challenge: introduction and overview , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[58]  Michael K. Gilson,et al.  Blind prediction of host–guest binding affinities: a new SAMPL3 challenge , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[59]  Hans-Joachim Werner,et al.  Local treatment of electron correlation in coupled cluster theory , 1996 .

[60]  Enrico O. Purisima,et al.  Fast summation boundary element method for calculating solvation free energies of macromolecules , 1998, J. Comput. Chem..

[61]  Charles H. Bennett,et al.  Efficient estimation of free energy differences from Monte Carlo data , 1976 .

[62]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  CHARMM general force field: A force field for drug‐like molecules compatible with the CHARMM all‐atom additive biological force fields , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[63]  Imran Siddiqi,et al.  Solvated Interaction Energy (SIE) for Scoring Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities, 1. Exploring the Parameter Space , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[64]  M. Parrinello,et al.  Funnel metadynamics as accurate binding free-energy method , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[65]  M. Gilson,et al.  Free energy, entropy, and induced fit in host-guest recognition: calculations with the second-generation mining minima algorithm. , 2004, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[66]  Ryan G. Coleman,et al.  SAMPL4 & DOCK3.7: lessons for automated docking procedures , 2014, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[67]  Richard D. Smith,et al.  CSAR Benchmark Exercise 2011–2012: Evaluation of Results from Docking and Relative Ranking of Blinded Congeneric Series , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[68]  Michael K. Gilson,et al.  Fast Assignment of Accurate Partial Atomic Charges: An Electronegativity Equalization Method that Accounts for Alternate Resonance Forms , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[69]  Jian Yin,et al.  Blind prediction of SAMPL4 cucurbit[7]uril binding affinities with the mining minima method , 2014, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[70]  Liping Cao,et al.  Absolute and relative binding affinity of cucurbit[7]uril towards a series of cationic guests , 2014 .

[71]  F. Momany,et al.  Validation of the general purpose QUANTA ®3.2/CHARMm® force field , 1992 .

[72]  Araz Jakalian,et al.  Fast, efficient generation of high‐quality atomic charges. AM1‐BCC model: I. Method , 2000 .

[73]  Traian Sulea,et al.  Rapid Prediction of Solvation Free Energy. 2. The First-Shell Hydration (FiSH) Continuum Model. , 2010, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[74]  Christopher I. Bayly,et al.  Fast, efficient generation of high‐quality atomic charges. AM1‐BCC model: II. Parameterization and validation , 2002, J. Comput. Chem..

[75]  Michael K. Gilson,et al.  Prediction of SAMPL3 host–guest binding affinities: evaluating the accuracy of generalized force-fields , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[76]  Traian Sulea,et al.  Exhaustive docking and solvated interaction energy scoring: lessons learned from the SAMPL4 challenge , 2014, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[77]  A. Laio,et al.  Escaping free-energy minima , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.