A displaced-solvent functional analysis of model hydrophobic enclosures.

Calculation of protein-ligand binding affinities continues to be a hotbed of research. Although many techniques for computing protein-ligand binding affinities have been introduced--ranging from computationally very expensive approaches, such as free energy perturbation (FEP) theory; to more approximate techniques, such as empirically derived scoring functions, which, although computationally efficient, lack a clear theoretical basis--there remains pressing need for more robust approaches. A recently introduced technique, the displaced-solvent functional (DSF) method, was developed to bridge the gap between the high accuracy of FEP and the computational efficiency of empirically derived scoring functions. In order to develop a set of reference data to test the DSF theory for calculating absolute protein-ligand binding affinities, we have pursued FEP theory calculations of the binding free energies of a methane ligand with 13 different model hydrophobic enclosures of varying hydrophobicity. The binding free energies of the methane ligand with the various hydrophobic enclosures were then recomputed by DSF theory and compared with the FEP reference data. We find that the DSF theory, which relies on no empirically tuned parameters, shows excellent quantitative agreement with the FEP. We also explored the ability of buried solvent accessible surface area and buried molecular surface area models to describe the relevant physics, and find the buried molecular surface area model to offer superior performance over this dataset.

[1]  Richard H. Henchman,et al.  Revisiting free energy calculations: a theoretical connection to MM/PBSA and direct calculation of the association free energy. , 2004, Biophysical journal.

[2]  Woody Sherman,et al.  High‐energy water sites determine peptide binding affinity and specificity of PDZ domains , 2009, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[3]  R. Levy,et al.  Enthalpy−Entropy and Cavity Decomposition of Alkane Hydration Free Energies: Numerical Results and Implications for Theories of Hydrophobic Solvation , 2000 .

[4]  Cristiano Ruch Werneck Guimarães,et al.  MM-GB/SA Rescoring of Docking Poses in Structure-Based Lead Optimization , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[5]  Woody Sherman,et al.  New hypotheses about the structure–function of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9: Analysis of the epidermal growth factor‐like repeat A docking site using WaterMap , 2010, Proteins.

[6]  Robert Abel,et al.  Thermodynamic properties of liquid water: an application of a nonparametric approach to computing the entropy of a neat fluid. , 2009, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[7]  B Honig,et al.  Reconciling the magnitude of the microscopic and macroscopic hydrophobic effects. , 1991, Science.

[8]  M. Klein,et al.  Constant pressure molecular dynamics algorithms , 1994 .

[9]  David L Mobley,et al.  The Confine-and-Release Method: Obtaining Correct Binding Free Energies in the Presence of Protein Conformational Change. , 2007, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[10]  Michael K. Gilson,et al.  Theory of free energy and entropy in noncovalent binding. , 2009, Chemical reviews.

[11]  David L Mobley,et al.  Small molecule hydration free energies in explicit solvent: An extensive test of fixed-charge atomistic simulations. , 2009, Journal of chemical theory and computation.

[12]  M L Connolly,et al.  The molecular surface package. , 1993, Journal of molecular graphics.

[13]  B. Berne,et al.  Dewetting and hydrophobic interaction in physical and biological systems. , 2009, Annual review of physical chemistry.

[14]  Noel Southall,et al.  ChemInform Abstract: A View of the Hydrophobic Effect , 2002 .

[15]  B. Roux,et al.  Computations of standard binding free energies with molecular dynamics simulations. , 2009, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[16]  Cristiano Ruch Werneck Guimarães,et al.  Addressing Limitations with the MM-GB/SA Scoring Procedure using the WaterMap Method and Free Energy Perturbation Calculations , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[17]  Hoover,et al.  Canonical dynamics: Equilibrium phase-space distributions. , 1985, Physical review. A, General physics.

[18]  W. Sherman,et al.  Understanding Kinase Selectivity Through Energetic Analysis of Binding Site Waters , 2010, ChemMedChem.

[19]  B. Berne,et al.  Role of the active-site solvent in the thermodynamics of factor Xa ligand binding. , 2008, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[20]  G. Hummer,et al.  Hydrophobic Effects on a Molecular Scale , 1998, physics/9807001.

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

[22]  James R Kiefer,et al.  Structural and thermodynamic characterization of the TYK2 and JAK3 kinase domains in complex with CP-690550 and CMP-6. , 2010, Journal of molecular biology.

[23]  Jonathan C. Horton,et al.  What you see ... , 2001, Nature.

[24]  K. Dill,et al.  Binding of small-molecule ligands to proteins: "what you see" is not always "what you get". , 2009, Structure.

[25]  T. Lazaridis Inhomogeneous Fluid Approach to Solvation Thermodynamics. 1. Theory , 1998 .

[26]  T. Darden,et al.  Particle mesh Ewald: An N⋅log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems , 1993 .

[27]  Alexander D. MacKerell,et al.  Computational evaluation of protein-small molecule binding. , 2009, Current opinion in structural biology.

[28]  M. Jacobson,et al.  Molecular mechanics methods for predicting protein-ligand binding. , 2006, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP.

[29]  Themis Lazaridis,et al.  Inhomogeneous Fluid Approach to Solvation Thermodynamics. 2. Applications to Simple Fluids , 1998 .

[30]  S. Homans,et al.  Water, water everywhere--except where it matters? , 2007, Drug discovery today.

[31]  A. Singer,et al.  Maximum entropy formulation of the Kirkwood superposition approximation. , 2004, The Journal of chemical physics.

[32]  S. Nosé A unified formulation of the constant temperature molecular dynamics methods , 1984 .

[33]  Robert Abel,et al.  Motifs for molecular recognition exploiting hydrophobic enclosure in protein–ligand binding , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  Peter Naur,et al.  The glutamate receptor GluR5 agonist (S)-2-amino-3-(3-hydroxy-7,8-dihydro-6H-cyclohepta[d]isoxazol-4-yl)propionic acid and the 8-methyl analogue: synthesis, molecular pharmacology, and biostructural characterization. , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.