4.4 Article

Quantum Mechanical Binding Free Energy Calculation for Phosphopeptide Inhibitors of the Lck SH2 Domain

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY
卷 32, 期 10, 页码 2254-2263

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcc.21808

关键词

binding free energy; quantum mechanics; semiempirical methods; end-point methods; SH2 domain; MM/QM-COSMO; PM3

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The accurate and efficient calculation of binding free energies is essential in computational biophysics. We present a linear-scaling quantum mechanical (QM)-based end-point method termed MM/QM-COSMO to calculate binding free energies in biomolecular systems, with an improved description of entropic changes. Molecular dynamics trajectories are re-evaluated using a semiempirical Hamiltonian and a continuum solvent model; translational and rotational entropies are calculated using configurational integrals, and internal entropy is calculated using the harmonic oscillator approximation. As an application, we studied the binding of a series of phosphotyrosine tetrapeptides to the human Lck SH2 domain, a key component in intracellular signal transduction, modulation of which can have therapeutic relevance in the treatment of cancer, osteoporosis, and autoimmune diseases. Calculations with molecular mechanics Poisson-Boltzmann, and generalized Born surface area methods showed large discrepancies with experimental data stemming from the enthalpic component, in agreement with an earlier report. The empirical force field-based solvent interaction energy scoring function yielded improved results, with average unsigned error of 3.6 kcal/mol, and a better ligand ranking. The MM/QM-COSMO method exhibited the best agreement both for absolute (average unsigned error - 0.7 kcal/mol) and relative binding free energy calculations. These results show the feasibility and promise of a full QM-based end-point method with an adequate balance of accuracy and computational efficiency. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem 32: 2254-2263, 2011

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据