4.4 Article

Testing and validation of the Automated Topology Builder (ATB) version 2.0: prediction of hydration free enthalpies

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-AIDED MOLECULAR DESIGN
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 221-233

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10822-014-9713-7

关键词

SAMPL4; Automated topology builder; GROMOS; Hydration free enthalpy; Molecular dynamics; Thermodynamic integration

资金

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) [DP0987043, ARC DP110100327, ARC DP130102153]
  2. Australian Post-Doctoral (APD) fellowship
  3. University of Queensland International Scholarship (UQI)
  4. National Computational Infrastructure (NCI, Australia) National Facility [m72, n63]
  5. Queensland Cyber Infrastructure Foundation
  6. NeCTAR
  7. Australian Research Council [DP0987043] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To test and validate the Automated force field Topology Builder and Repository (ATB;) the hydration free enthalpies for a set of 214 drug-like molecules, including 47 molecules that form part of the SAMPL4 challenge have been estimated using thermodynamic integration and compared to experiment. The calculations were performed using a fully automated protocol that incorporated a dynamic analysis of the convergence and integration error in the selection of intermediate points. The system has been designed and implemented such that hydration free enthalpies can be obtained without manual intervention following the submission of a molecule to the ATB. The overall average unsigned error (AUE) using ATB 2.0 topologies for the complete set of 214 molecules was 6.7 kJ/mol and for molecules within the SAMPL4 7.5 kJ/mol. The root mean square error (RMSE) was 9.5 and 10.0 kJ/mol respectively. However, for molecules containing functional groups that form part of the main GROMOS force field the AUE was 3.4 kJ/mol and the RMSE was 4.0 kJ/mol. This suggests it will be possible to further refine the parameters provided by the ATB based on hydration free enthalpies.

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