Accelerating Alchemical Free Energy Prediction Using a Multistate Method: Application to Multiple Kinases

12 July 2023, Version 1
This content is a preprint and has not undergone peer review at the time of posting.

Abstract

Alchemical free-energy methods based on molecular dynamics (MD) simulations have become important tools to identify modifications of small organic molecules that improve their protein binding affinity during lead optimization. The routine application of pairwise free-energy methods to rank potential binders from best to worst is impacted by the combinatorial increase of calculations to perform when the number of molecules to assess grows. To address this fundamental limitation, our group has developed replica-exchange enveloping distribution sampling (RE-EDS), a pathway-independent multistate method, enabling the calculation of alchemical free-energy differences between multiple ligands (N > 2) from a single MD simulation. In this work, we apply the method to a set of three kinases with diverse binding pockets, and their corresponding inhibitors (36 in total), chosen to showcase the general applicability of RE-EDS in prospective drug design campaigns. We show that for the targets studied, RE-EDS is able to model up to 13 ligands simultaneously with high sampling efficiency, leading to a substantial decrease in computational cost when compared to pairwise methods.

Keywords

Free energy calculation
Kinase
Multistate methods

Supplementary materials

Title
Description
Actions
Title
Supporting Information
Description
Experimental binding affinities, RE-EDS simulation details, additional information for the datasets, computational scaling and costs
Actions

Comments

Comments are not moderated before they are posted, but they can be removed by the site moderators if they are found to be in contravention of our Commenting Policy [opens in a new tab] - please read this policy before you post. Comments should be used for scholarly discussion of the content in question. You can find more information about how to use the commenting feature here [opens in a new tab] .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy [opens in a new tab] and Terms of Service [opens in a new tab] apply.
Comment number 1, David Mobley: Aug 09, 2023, 22:13

I had a question about differences in performance between OpenFF and GAFF. In the conclusions it says that PIM1 is a (one of the?) case(s) where OpenFF performance was not better than GAFF, but I'm wondering what statistic you have in mind when you say that? Table 3 seems to indicate otherwise. Or did you mean PAK, where Table 1 has GAFF doing better as judged by MUE, but OpenFF doing better on tau and rho? Or maybe I'm just missing what data you're looking at.

Response,
Candide Champion :
Aug 10, 2023, 11:01

Dear David Mobley. Thank you for your comment. We based our discussion on the MUE values for the PIM dataset (Table 3), which are slightly larger for OpenFF (4.9 kJ/mol) compared to GAFF (4.6 kJ/mol). However, as you point out, the correlation metrics indicate otherwise. Importantly, the correlation metrics (Spearman Rho and Kendall Tau) are consistently better with OpenFF across all three datasets. We will update our manuscript accordingly.