König Gerhard, Hudson Phillip S, Boresch Stefan, Woodcock H Lee
Laboratory of Computational Biology, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland 20892, United States.
Department of Chemistry, University of South Florida , 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CHE205, Tampa, Florida 33620-5250, United States.
J Chem Theory Comput. 2014 Apr 8;10(4):1406-1419. doi: 10.1021/ct401118k. Epub 2014 Feb 11.
THE RELIABILITY OF FREE ENERGY SIMULATIONS (FES) IS LIMITED BY TWO FACTORS: (a) the need for correct sampling and (b) the accuracy of the computational method employed. Classical methods (e.g., force fields) are typically used for FES and present a myriad of challenges, with parametrization being a principle one. On the other hand, parameter-free quantum mechanical (QM) methods tend to be too computationally expensive for adequate sampling. One widely used approach is a combination of methods, where the free energy difference between the two end states is computed by, e.g., molecular mechanics (MM), and the end states are corrected by more accurate methods, such as QM or hybrid QM/MM techniques. Here we report two new approaches that significantly improve the aforementioned scheme; with a focus on how to compute corrections between, e.g., the MM and the more accurate QM calculations. First, a molecular dynamics trajectory that properly samples relevant conformational degrees of freedom is generated. Next, potential energies of each trajectory frame are generated with a QM or QM/MM Hamiltonian. Free energy differences are then calculated based on the QM or QM/MM energies using either a non-Boltzmann Bennett approach (QM-NBB) or non-Boltzmann free energy perturbation (NB-FEP). Both approaches are applied to calculate relative and absolute solvation free energies in explicit and implicit solvent environments. Solvation free energy differences (relative and absolute) between ethane and methanol in explicit solvent are used as the initial test case for QM-NBB. Next, implicit solvent methods are employed in conjunction with both QM-NBB and NB-FEP to compute absolute solvation free energies for 21 compounds. These compounds range from small molecules such as ethane and methanol to fairly large, flexible solutes, such as triacetyl glycerol. Several technical aspects were investigated. Ultimately some best practices are suggested for improving methods that seek to connect MM to QM (or QM/MM) levels of theory in FES.
自由能模拟(FES)的可靠性受两个因素限制:(a)正确采样的需求和(b)所采用计算方法的准确性。经典方法(如力场)通常用于FES,存在诸多挑战,参数化是主要挑战之一。另一方面,无参数量子力学(QM)方法对于充分采样而言计算成本往往过高。一种广泛使用的方法是方法组合,其中两个终态之间的自由能差通过例如分子力学(MM)计算,而终态则通过更精确的方法(如QM或混合QM/MM技术)进行校正。在此,我们报告两种显著改进上述方案的新方法;重点在于如何计算例如MM与更精确的QM计算之间的校正。首先,生成一个能正确采样相关构象自由度的分子动力学轨迹。接下来,使用QM或QM/MM哈密顿量生成每个轨迹帧的势能。然后基于QM或QM/MM能量,使用非玻尔兹曼贝内特方法(QM-NBB)或非玻尔兹曼自由能微扰(NB-FEP)计算自由能差。这两种方法都用于计算在显式和隐式溶剂环境中的相对和绝对溶剂化自由能。在显式溶剂中乙烷和甲醇之间的溶剂化自由能差(相对和绝对)用作QM-NBB的初始测试案例。接下来,将隐式溶剂方法与QM-NBB和NB-FEP结合使用,计算21种化合物的绝对溶剂化自由能。这些化合物从小分子如乙烷和甲醇到相当大的柔性溶质如三乙酰甘油不等。研究了几个技术方面。最终,针对改进在FES中试图将MM与QM(或QM/MM)理论水平相联系的方法,提出了一些最佳实践建议。