Caldararu Octav, Olsson Martin A, Riplinger Christoph, Neese Frank, Ryde Ulf
Department of Theoretical Chemistry, Chemical Centre, Lund University, P. O. Box 124, 221 00, Lund, Sweden.
Max-Planck-Institut für Chemische Energiekonversion, Stiftstraße 34-36, 45470, Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany.
J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2017 Jan;31(1):87-106. doi: 10.1007/s10822-016-9957-5. Epub 2016 Sep 6.
We have tried to calculate the free energy for the binding of six small ligands to two variants of the octa-acid deep cavitand host in the SAMPL5 blind challenge. We employed structures minimised with dispersion-corrected density-functional theory with small basis sets and energies were calculated using large basis sets. Solvation energies were calculated with continuum methods and thermostatistical corrections were obtained from frequencies calculated at the HF-3c level. Care was taken to minimise the effects of the flexibility of the host by keeping the complexes as symmetric and similar as possible. In some calculations, the large net charge of the host was reduced by removing the propionate and benzoate groups. In addition, the effect of a restricted molecular dynamics sampling of structures was tested. Finally, we tried to improve the energies by using the DLPNO-CCSD(T) approach. Unfortunately, results of quite poor quality were obtained, with no correlation to the experimental data, systematically too positive affinities (by ~50 kJ/mol) and a mean absolute error (after removal of the systematic error) of 11-16 kJ/mol. DLPNO-CCSD(T) did not improve the results, so the accuracy is not limited by the energy function. Instead, four likely sources of errors were identified: first, the minimised structures were often incorrect, owing to the omission of explicit solvent. They could be partly improved by performing the minimisations in a continuum solvent with four water molecules around the charged groups of the ligands. Second, some ligands could bind in several different conformations, requiring sampling of reasonable structures. Third, there is an indication the continuum-solvation model has problems to accurately describe the binding of both the negatively and positively charged guest molecules. Fourth, different methods to calculate the thermostatistical corrections gave results that differed by up to 30 kJ/mol and there is an indication that HF-3c overestimates the entropy term. In conclusion, it is a challenge to calculate binding affinities for this octa-acid system with quantum-mechanical methods.
在SAMPL5盲测中,我们尝试计算六种小配体与八酸深穴体主体的两种变体结合的自由能。我们采用经色散校正的密度泛函理论对结构进行了最小化处理,使用的是小基组,而能量则使用大基组进行计算。溶剂化能通过连续介质方法计算,热统计校正则从HF - 3c水平计算得到的频率中获得。我们尽可能保持配合物的对称性和相似性,以尽量减少主体柔性的影响。在一些计算中,通过去除丙酸酯和苯甲酸酯基团来降低主体的大净电荷。此外,还测试了受限分子动力学结构采样的效果。最后,我们尝试使用DLPNO - CCSD(T)方法来改进能量。遗憾的是,得到的结果质量很差,与实验数据没有相关性,亲和力系统地过高(约50 kJ/mol)且平均绝对误差(去除系统误差后)为11 - 16 kJ/mol。DLPNO - CCSD(T)并没有改善结果,所以精度不受能量函数的限制。相反,我们确定了四个可能的误差来源:第一,由于省略了明确的溶剂,最小化后的结构常常不正确。通过在连续介质溶剂中进行最小化处理,使配体带电基团周围有四个水分子,可以部分改善这种情况。第二,一些配体可以以几种不同的构象结合,这需要对合理的结构进行采样。第三,有迹象表明连续介质溶剂化模型在准确描述带负电和带正电客体分子的结合方面存在问题。第四,计算热统计校正的不同方法给出的结果相差高达30 kJ/mol,并且有迹象表明HF - 3c高估了熵项。总之,用量子力学方法计算该八酸系统的结合亲和力是一项挑战。