4.7 Article

Formal Estimation of Errors in Computed Absolute Interaction Energies of Protein-Ligand Complexes

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL THEORY AND COMPUTATION
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 790-797

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ct100563b

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH [GM044974, GM066689]
  2. NSF [CHE-0715268, CHE-04-43564]
  3. U.S. Department of Energy, the division of Advanced Scientific Computing Research
  4. National Center for Computational Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory [DE-AC05-00OR22725]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A largely unsolved problem in computational biochemistry is the accurate prediction of binding affinities of small ligands to protein receptors. We present a detailed analysis of the systematic and random errors present in computational methods through the use of error probability density functions, specifically for computed interaction energies between chemical fragments comprising a protein-ligand complex. An HIV-II protease crystal structure with a bound ligand (indinavir) was chosen as a model protein-ligand complex. The complex was decomposed into 21 interacting fragment pairs, which were studied using a number of computational methods. The chemically accurate complete basis set coupled cluster theory (CCSD(T)/CBS) interaction energies were used as reference values to generate our error estimates. In our analysis, we observed significant systematic and random errors in most methods, which was surprising, especially for parametrized classical and semiempirical quantum mechanical calculations. After propagating these fragment-based error estimates over the entire protein-ligand complex, our total error estimates for many methods are large compared to the experimentally determined free energy of binding. Thus, we conclude that statistical error analysis is a necessary addition to any scoring function attempting to produce reliable binding affinity predictions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available