Suppr超能文献

用 MM/PBSA 和 LIE 方法估算 SAMPL3 胰蛋白酶和主体-客体盲测中的结合亲和力。

Binding affinities in the SAMPL3 trypsin and host-guest blind tests estimated with the MM/PBSA and LIE methods.

机构信息

Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Lund University, Chemical Centre, P.O. Box 124, 221 00 Lund, Sweden.

出版信息

J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2012 May;26(5):527-41. doi: 10.1007/s10822-011-9524-z. Epub 2011 Dec 25.

Abstract

We have estimated affinities for the binding of 34 ligands to trypsin and nine guest molecules to three different hosts in the SAMPL3 blind challenge, using the MM/PBSA, MM/GBSA, LIE, continuum LIE, and Glide score methods. For the trypsin challenge, none of the methods were able to accurately predict the experimental results. For the MM/GB(PB)SA and LIE methods, the rankings were essentially random and the mean absolute deviations were much worse than a null hypothesis giving the same affinity to all ligand. Glide scoring gave a Kendall's τ index better than random, but the ranking is still only mediocre, τ = 0.2. However, the range of affinities is small and most of the pairs of ligands have an experimental affinity difference that is not statistically significant. Removing those pairs improves the ranking metric to 0.4-1.0 for all methods except CLIE. Half of the trypsin ligands were non-binders according to the binding assay. The LIE methods could not separate the inactive ligands from the active ones better than a random guess, whereas MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA were slightly better than random (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve, AUC = 0.65-0.68), and Glide scoring was even better (AUC = 0.79). For the first host, MM/GBSA and MM/PBSA reproduce the experimental ranking fairly good, with τ = 0.6 and 0.5, respectively, whereas the Glide scoring was considerably worse, with a τ = 0.4, highlighting that the success of the methods is system-dependent.

摘要

我们使用 MM/PBSA、MM/GBSA、LIE、连续 LIE 和 Glide 评分方法,对 34 种配体与胰蛋白酶的结合亲和力和 9 种客体分子与 3 种不同主体的结合亲和力进行了估算,这是在 SAMPL3 盲测挑战中进行的。对于胰蛋白酶挑战,没有一种方法能够准确预测实验结果。对于 MM/GB(PB)SA 和 LIE 方法,排名基本上是随机的,平均绝对偏差比假设所有配体具有相同亲和力的假设差得多。Glide 评分的 Kendall's τ 指数优于随机,但排名仍然只是中等,τ=0.2。然而,亲和力的范围很小,大多数配体对的实验亲和力差异没有统计学意义。除去这些配体后,除连续 LIE 方法外,所有方法的排序指标都提高到 0.4-1.0。根据结合测定法,一半的胰蛋白酶配体是非结合配体。LIE 方法不能将非活性配体与活性配体更好地区分开来,而 MM/GBSA 和 MM/PBSA 略优于随机猜测(接受者操作特征曲线下的面积,AUC=0.65-0.68),而 Glide 评分甚至更好(AUC=0.79)。对于第一个主体,MM/GBSA 和 MM/PBSA 分别以 τ=0.6 和 0.5 相当好地再现了实验排名,而 Glide 评分则相当差,τ=0.4,突出了方法的成功是系统依赖性的。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验