Abstract
The recent expansion of GPCR crystal structures provides the opportunity to assess the performance of structure-based drug design methods for the GPCR superfamily. Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA)-based methods are commonly used for binding affinity prediction, as they provide an intermediate compromise of speed and accuracy between the empirical scoring functions used in docking and more robust free energy perturbation methods. In this study, we systematically assessed the performance of MM/PBSA in predicting experimental binding free energies using twenty Class A GPCR crystal structures and 934 known ligands. Correlations between predicted and experimental binding free energies varied significantly between individual targets, ranging from r = − 0.334 in the inactive-state CB1 cannabinoid receptor to r = 0.781 in the active-state CB1 cannabinoid receptor, while average correlation across all twenty targets was relatively poor (r = 0.183). MM/PBSA provided better predictions of binding free energies compared to docking scores in eight out of the twenty GPCR targets while performing worse for four targets. MM/PBSA binding affinity predictions calculated using a single, energy minimized structure provided comparable predictions to sampling from molecular dynamics simulations and may be more efficient when computational cost becomes restrictive. Additionally, we observed that restricting MM/PBSA calculations to ligands with a high degree of structural similarity to the crystal structure ligands improved performance in several cases. In conclusion, while MM/PBSA remains a valuable tool for GPCR structure-based drug design, its performance in predicting the binding free energies of GPCR ligands remains highly system-specific as demonstrated in a subset of twenty Class A GPCRs, and validation of MM/PBSA-based methods for each individual case is recommended before prospective use.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- 5-HT2B :
-
5-Hydroxytryptamine 2B receptor
- A2AAR:
-
Adenosine A2A receptor
- M1R:
-
Muscarinic acetylcholine 1 receptor
- M3R:
-
Muscarinic acetylcholine 3 receptor
- M4R:
-
Muscarinic acetylcholine 4 receptor
- β1AR:
-
Beta-1 receptor
- β2AR:
-
Beta-2 receptor
- CB1 :
-
Cannabinoid 1 receptor
- D3R:
-
Dopamine 3 receptor
- D4R:
-
Dopamine 4 receptor
- EM:
-
Energy minimized
- GPCR:
-
G protein-coupled receptor
- H1R:
-
Histamine 1 receptor
- Ki :
-
Inhibitory constant
- MD:
-
Molecular dynamics
- MM/PBSA:
-
Molecular Mechanics/Poisson Boltzmann Surface Area
- δ-OR:
-
Delta opioid receptor
- μ-OR:
-
mu opioid receptor
- N/OFQ-OR:
-
Nociception/orphanin FQ receptor
- P2Y12 :
-
Purinergic receptor
- PDB:
-
Protein Data Bank
- r :
-
Pearson correlation coefficient
- SBDD:
-
Structure-based drug design
References
Katritch V, Cherezov V, Stevens RC (2013) Structure-function of the G protein-coupled receptor superfamily. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 53:531–556. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-032112-135923.Structure-Function
Sriram K, Insel PA (2018) GPCRs as targets for approved drugs: how many targets and how many drugs? Mol Pharmacol. https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.117.111062
Fredriksson R, Lagerström MC, Lundin L-G, Schiöth HB (2003) The G-protein-coupled receptors in the human genome form five main families. Phylogenetic analysis, paralogon groups, and fingerprints. Mol Pharmacol 63:1256–1272. https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.63.6.1256
Ghosh E, Kumari P, Jaiman D, Shukla AK (2015) Methodological advances: the unsung heroes of the GPCR structural revolution. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 16:69–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3933
Palczewski K, Kumasaka T, Hori T et al (2000) Crystal structure of rhodopsin: a G protein–coupled receptor. Science 289:739–745. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5480.739
Cherezov V, Rosenbaum DM, Hanson MA et al (2007) High-resolution crystal structure of an engineered human β2-adrenergic G protein-coupled receptor. Science 318:1258–1266. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150577
Rasmussen SGF, Choi H-J, Rosenbaum DM et al (2007) Crystal structure of the human β2 adrenergic G-protein-coupled receptor. Nature 450:383–387. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06325
Pándy-Szekeres G, Munk C, Tsonkov TM et al (2018) GPCRdb in 2018: adding GPCR structure models and ligands. Nucleic Acids Res 46:D440–D446. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx1109
Michino M, Abola E, Brooks CL et al (2009) Community-wide assessment of GPCR structure modelling and ligand docking: GPCR Dock 2008. Nat Rev Drug Discov 8:455–463. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2877
Beuming T, Sherman W (2012) Current assessment of docking into GPCR crystal structures and homology models: successes, challenges, and guidelines. J Chem Inf Model 52:3263–3277. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci300411b
Loo JSE, Emtage AL, Ng KW et al (2018) Assessing GPCR homology models constructed from templates of various transmembrane sequence identities: binding mode prediction and docking enrichment. J Mol Graph Model 80:38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmgm.2017.12.017
Kollman PA, Massova I, Reyes C et al (2000) Calculating structures and free energies of complex molecules: combining molecular mechanics and continuum models. Acc Chem Res 33:889–897. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar000033
Genheden S, Ryde U (2015) The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate ligand-binding affinities. Expert Opin Drug Discov 10:449–461. https://doi.org/10.1517/17460441.2015.1032936
Wang J, Morin P, Wang W, Kollman PA (2001) Use of MM-PBSA in reproducing the binding free energies to HIV-1 RT of TIBO derivatives and predicting the binding mode to HIV-1 RT of Efavirenz by docking and MM-PBSA. J Am Chem Soc 123:5221–5230. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja003834q
Huo S, Wang J, Cieplak P et al (2002) Molecular dynamics and free energy analyses of cathepsin D-inhibitor interactions: insight into structure-based ligand design. J Med Chem 45:1412–1419. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219633609005131
Bonnet P, Bryce RA (2005) Scoring binding affinity of multiple ligands using implicit solvent and a single molecular dynamics trajectory: application to Influenza neuraminidase. J Mol Graph Model 24:147–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmgm.2005.06.003
Wang W, Lim WA, Jakalian A et al (2001) An analysis of the interactions between the sem—5 SH3 domain and its ligands using molecular dynamics, free energy calculations, and sequence analysis. J Am Chem Soc 123:3986–3994. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja003164o
Chéron N, Shakhnovich EI (2017) Effect of sampling on BACE-1 ligands binding free energy predictions via MM-PBSA calculations. J Comput Chem 38:1941–1951. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.24839
Rastelli G, Del Rio A, Degliesposti G, Sgobba M (2010) Fast and Accurate predictions of binding free energies using MM-PBSA and MM-GBSA. J Comput Chem 31:797–810. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21372
Ferrari AM, Degliesposti G, Sgobba M, Rastelli G (2007) Validation of an automated procedure for the prediction of relative free energies of binding on a set of aldose reductase inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem 15:7865–7877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmc.2007.08.019
Kuhn B, Kollman PA (2000) Binding of a diverse set of ligands to avidin and streptavidin: an accurate quantitative prediction of their relative affinities by a combination of molecular mechanics and continuum solvent models. J Med Chem 43:3786–3791. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm000241h
Pearlman D (2005) Evaluating the molecular mechanics Poisson—Boltzmann surface area free energy method using a congeneric series of ligands to p38 MAP kinase. J Med Chem 48:7796–7807. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm050306m
Singh N, Warshel A (2010) Absolute binding free energy calculations: on the accuracy of computational scoring of protein-ligand interactions. Proteins 78:1705–1723. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.22687
Kuhn B, Gerber P, Schulz-Gasch T, Stahl M (2005) Validation and use of the MM-PBSA approach for drug discovery. J Med Chem 48:4040–4048. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm049081q
Hou T, Wang J, Li Y, Wang W (2011) Assessing the performance of the MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 1. The accuracy of binding free energy calculations based on molecular dynamics simulations. J Chem Inf Model 51:69–82. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci100275a
Sun H, Li Y, Tian S et al (2014) Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 4. Accuracies of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methodologies evaluated by various simulation protocols using PDBbind data set. Phys Chem Chem Phys 16:16719. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4CP01388C
Xu L, Sun H, Li Y et al (2013) Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 3. The impact of force fields and ligand charge models. J Phys Chem B 117:8408–8421. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp404160y
Wang C, Nguyen PH, Pham K et al (2016) Calculating protein–ligand binding affinities with MMPBSA: method and error analysis. J Comput Chem 37:2436–2446. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.24467
Yang T, Wu JC, Yan C et al (2011) Virtual screening using molecular simulations. Proteins 79:1940–1951. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.23018
Anighoro A, Rastelli G (2013) Enrichment factor analyses on g-protein coupled receptors with known crystal structure. J Chem Inf Model 53:739–743. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci4000745
Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z et al (2000) The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28:235–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.1.235
Maestro, Schrödinger, LLC, New York, NY, 2018
Shelley JC, Cholleti A, Frye LL et al (2007) Epik: a software program for pKa prediction and protonation state generation for drug-like molecules. J Comput Aided Mol Des 21:681–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-007-9133-z
Jacobson MP, Friesner RA, Xiang Z, Honig B (2002) On the role of the crystal environment in determining protein side-chain conformations. J Mol Biol 320:597–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(02)00470-9
Gaulton A, Hersey A, Nowotka ML et al (2017) The ChEMBL database in 2017. Nucleic Acids Res 45:D945–D954. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw1074
LigPrep, Schrödinger, LLC, New York, NY, 2018
Sherman W, Beard HS, Farid R (2006) Use of an induced fit receptor structure in virtual screening. Chem Biol Drug Des 67:83–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0285.2005.00327.x
Sherman W, Day T, Jacobson MP et al (2006) Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. J Med Chem 49:534–553. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm050540c
Cheng T, Li X, Li Y et al (2009) Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set. J Chem Inf Model 49:1079–1093. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci9000053
Ferrara P, Gohlke H, Price DJ et al (2004) Assessing scoring functions for protein–ligand interactions. J Med Chem 47:3032–3047
Plewczynski D, Lazniewski M, Augustyniak R, Ginalski K (2011) Can we trust docking results? Evaluation of seven commonly used programs on PDBbind database. J Comput Chem 32:742–755. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc
Wang R, Lu Y, Fang X, Wang S (2004) An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein–ligand complexes. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44:2114–2125. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci049733j
Wang R, Lu Y, Wang S (2003) Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J Med Chem 46:2287–2303. https://doi.org/10.1021/Jm0203783
Warren GL, Andrews CW, Capelli A-M et al (2006) A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J Med Chem 49:5912–5931. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm050362n
Wang Z, Sun H, Yao X et al (2016) Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein–ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power. Phys Chem Chem Phys 18:12964–12975. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6cp01555g
Abraham MJ, Hess B, van der Spoel D, Lindahl E (2018) GROMACS user manual version 2018
Lindorff-Larsen K, Piana S, Palmo K et al (2010) Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field. Proteins 78:1950–1958. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.22711
Wang J, Wolf RM, Caldwell JW et al (2004) Development and testing of a general amber force field. J Comput Chem 25:1157–1174. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.20035
Sousa Da Silva AW, Vranken WF (2012) ACPYPE—AnteChamber PYthon parser interface. BMC Res Notes 5:367. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-5-367
Darden T, York D, Pedersen L (1993) Particle mesh Ewald: an N log(N) method for Ewald sums in large systems. J Chem Phys 98:10089–10092. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.464397
Hess B (2008) P-LINCS: a parallel linear constraint solver for molecular simulation. J Chem Theory Comput 4:116–122. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct700200b
Hess B, Bekker H, Berendsen HJC, Fraaije JJGEM (1997) LINCS: a linear constraint solver for molecular simulations. J Comput Chem 18:1463–1472. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199709)18:12%3c1463:AID-JCC4%3e3.0.CO;2-H
Jorgensen WL, Chandrasekhar J, Madura JD et al (1983) Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water. J Chem Phys 79:926–935. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.445869
Berendsen HJC, Postma JPM, van Gunsteren WF et al (1984) Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath. J Chem Phys 81:3684–3690. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.448118
Nosé S, Klein ML (1983) Constant pressure molecular dynamics for molecular systems. Mol Phys 50:1055–1076. https://doi.org/10.1080/00268978300102851
Bussi G, Donadio D, Parrinello M (2007) Canonical sampling through velocity-rescaling. J Chem Phys 126:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2408420
Kumari R, Kumar R, Lynn A (2014) G-mmpbsa -A GROMACS tool for high-throughput MM-PBSA calculations. J Chem Inf Model 54:1951–1962. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci500020m
Wang W, Kollman PA (2000) Free Energy calculations on dimer stability of the HIV protease using molecular dynamics and a continuum solvent model. J Mol Biol 303:567–582. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.2000.4057
Sun H, Li Y, Shen M et al (2014) Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 5. Improved docking performance by using high solute dielectric constant MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA rescoring. Phys Chem Chem Phys 16:22035–22045. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4CP03179B
Jacobson KA (2013) Crystal structures of the A2A adenosine receptor and their use in medicinal chemistry. Silico Pharmacol 1:22. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-9616-1-22
Weis A, Katebzadeh K, Söderhjelm P et al (2006) Ligand affinities Predicted with the MM/PBSA method: dependence on the simulation method and the force field. J Med Chem 49:6596–6606. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm0608210
Liu Z, Li Y, Han L et al (2015) PDB-wide collection of binding data: current status of the PDBbind database. Bioinformatics 31:405–412. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu626
Chaput L, Martinez-Sanz J, Saettel N, Mouawad L (2016) Benchmark of four popular virtual screening programs: construction of the active/decoy dataset remains a major determinant of measured performance. J Cheminform 8:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-016-0167-x
Durant JL, Leland BA, Henry DR, Nourse JG (2002) Reoptimization of MDL keys for use in drug discovery. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 42:1273–1280. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci010132r
Maffucci I, Contini A (2013) Explicit ligand hydration shells improve the correlation between MM-PB/GBSA binding energies and experimental activities. J Chem Theory Comput 9:2706–2717. https://doi.org/10.1021/ct400045d
Zhu YL, Beroza P, Artis DR (2014) Including explicit water molecules as part of the protein structure in MM/PBSA calculations. J Chem Inf Model 54:462–469. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci4001794
Yang T, Wu JC, Yan C et al (2011) Virtual screening using molecular simulations. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinf 79:1940–1951. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.23018
Oehme DP, Brownlee RTC, Wilson DJD (2012) Effect of atomic charge, solvation, entropy, and ligand protonation state on MM-PB(GB)SA binding energies of HIV protease. J Comput Chem 33:2566–2580. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.23095
Su PC, Tsai CC, Mehboob S et al (2015) Comparison of radii sets, entropy, QM methods, and sampling on MM-PBSA, MM-GBSA, and QM/MM-GBSA ligand binding energies of F. tularensis enoyl-ACP reductase (FabI). J Comput Chem 36:1859–1873. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.24011
Funding
This research was supported by Taylor’s University through its Taylor’s University Flagship Research Grant Scheme under grant number TUFR/2017/002/10 and Taylor’s PhD Scholarship Program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors gave approval to the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
10822_2019_201_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Supplementary material 1. The full list of ligands used in the datasets is available as supporting information (PDF 293 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yau, M.Q., Emtage, A.L., Chan, N.J.Y. et al. Evaluating the performance of MM/PBSA for binding affinity prediction using class A GPCR crystal structures. J Comput Aided Mol Des 33, 487–496 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-019-00201-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-019-00201-3