Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: EC:3.4.21.6 (thromboplastin)
 13,278 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

We have estimated the hydration free energy for 20 neutral drug-like molecules, as well as for three series of 6-11 inhibitors to avidin, factor Xa, and galectin-3 with four different continuum solvent approaches (the polarised continuum method the Langevin dipole method, the finite-difference solution of the Poisson equation, and the generalised Born method), and several variants of each, giving in total 24 different methods. All four types of methods have been thoroughly calibrated for a number of experimentally known small organic molecules with a mean absolute deviation (MAD) of 1-6 kJ/mol for neutral molecules and 4-30 kJ/mol for ions. However, for the drug-like molecules, the accuracy seems to be appreciably worse. The reason for this is that drug-like molecules are more polar than small organic molecules and that the uncertainty of the methods is proportional to the size of the solvation energy. Therefore, the accuracy of continuum solvation methods should be discussed in relative, rather than absolute, terms. In fact, the mean unsigned relative deviations of the best solvation methods, 0.09 for neutral and 0.05 for ionic molecules, correspond to 2-20 kJ/mol absolute error for the drug-like molecules in this investigation, or 2-3,000 in terms of binding constants. Fortunately, the accuracy of all methods can be improved if only relative energies within a series of inhibitors are considered, especially if all of them have the same net charge. Then, all except two methods give MADs of 2-5 kJ/mol (corresponding to an uncertainty of a factor of 2-7 in the binding constant). Interestingly, the generalised Born methods typically give better results than the Poison-Boltzmann methods.
 ...
PMID:How accurate are continuum solvation models for drug-like molecules? 1944 22

We study how the results of molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are affected by various choices during the setup, e.g., the starting velocities, the solvation, the location of protons, the conformation of His, Asn, and Gln residues, the protonation and titration of His residues, and the treatment of alternative conformations. We estimate the binding affinity of ligands to four proteins calculated with the MM/GBSA method (molecular mechanics combined with a generalized Born and surface area solvation energy). For avidin and T4 lysozyme, all variations gave similar results within 2 kJ/mol. For factor Xa, differences in the solvation or in the selection of alternative conformations gave results that are significantly different from those of the other approaches by 4-6 kJ/mol, whereas for galectin-3, changes in the conformations, rotations, and protonation gave results that differed by 10 kJ/mol, but only if residues close to the binding site were modified. This shows that the results of MM/GBSA calculations are reasonably reproducible even if the MD simulations are set up with different software. Moreover, we show that the sampling of phase space can be enhanced by solvating the systems with different equilibrated water boxes, in addition to the common use of different starting velocities. If different conformations are available in the crystal structure, they should also be employed to enhance the sampling. Protonation, ionization, and conformations of Asn, Gln, and His may also be used to enhance sampling, but great effort should be spent to obtain as reliable predictions as possible close to the active site.
 ...
PMID:A comparison of different initialization protocols to obtain statistically independent molecular dynamics simulations. 2113 39