The use of quantum mechanical potentials in protein-ligand affinity prediction is becoming increasingly feasible with growing computational power. To move forward, validation of such potentials on real-world challenges is necessary. To this end, we have collated an extensive set of over a thousand galectin inhibitors with known affinities and docked them into galectin-3. The docked poses were then used to systematically evaluate several modern force fields and semiempirical quantum mechanical (SQM) methods up to the tight-binding level under consistent computational workflow. Implicit solvation models available with the tested methods were used to simulate solvation effects. Overall, the best methods in this study achieved a Pearson correlation of 0.7-0.8 between the computed and experimental affinities. There were differences between the tested methods in their ability to rank ligands across the entire ligand set as well as within subsets of structurally similar ligands. A major discrepancy was observed for a subset of ligands that bind to the protein via a halogen bond, which was clearly challenging for all the tested methods. The inclusion of an entropic term calculated by the rigid-rotor-harmonic-oscillator approximation at SQM level slightly worsened correlation with experiment but brought the calculated affinities closer to experimental values. We also found that the success of the prediction strongly depended on the solvation model. Furthermore, we provide an in-depth analysis of the individual energy terms and their effect on the overall prediction accuracy.

Department of Chemistry of Natural Compounds University of Chemistry and Technology Prague Technická 5 166 28 Prague Czech Republic

Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences Gilead Sciences and IOCB Research Centre Flemingovo nám 2 166 10 Prague Czech Republic

Zhejiang Laboratory Hangzhou 311100 China

Zobrazit více v PubMed

York D. M. Modern Alchemical Free Energy Methods for Drug Discovery Explained. ACS Phys. Chem. Au. 2023, 3 (6), 478–491. 10.1021/acsphyschemau.3c00033. PubMed DOI PMC

Chodera J. D.; Mobley D. L.; Shirts M. R.; Dixon R. W.; Branson K.; Pande V. S. Alchemical free energy methods for drug discovery: progress and challenges. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2011, 21 (2), 150–160. 10.1016/j.sbi.2011.01.011. PubMed DOI PMC

de Ruiter A.; Oostenbrink C. Advances in the calculation of binding free energies. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2020, 61, 207–212. 10.1016/j.sbi.2020.01.016. PubMed DOI

Christensen A. S.; Kubař T.; Cui Q.; Elstner M. Semiempirical Quantum Mechanical Methods for Noncovalent Interactions for Chemical and Biochemical Applications. Chem. Rev. 2016, 116 (9), 5301–5337. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00584. PubMed DOI PMC

Kříž K.; Řezáč J. Benchmarking of Semiempirical Quantum-Mechanical Methods on Systems Relevant to Computer-Aided Drug Design. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2020, 60 (3), 1453–1460. 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b01171. PubMed DOI

Stewart J. J. P. Optimization of parameters for semiempirical methods V: Modification of NDDO approximations and application to 70 elements. J. Mol. Model. 2007, 13 (12), 1173–1213. 10.1007/s00894-007-0233-4. PubMed DOI PMC

Řezáč J.; Hobza P. Advanced Corrections of Hydrogen Bonding and Dispersion for Semiempirical Quantum Mechanical Methods. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8 (1), 141–151. 10.1021/ct200751e. PubMed DOI

Řezáč J.; Riley K. E.; Hobza P. Benchmark Calculations of Noncovalent Interactions of Halogenated Molecules. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8 (11), 4285–4292. 10.1021/ct300647k. PubMed DOI

Kříž K.; Řezáč J. Non-covalent interactions atlas benchmark data sets 4: σ-hole interactions. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2022, 24 (24), 14794–14804. 10.1039/D2CP01600A. PubMed DOI

Stewart J. J. P.; Stewart A. C. A semiempirical method optimized for modeling proteins. J. Mol. Model. 2023, 29 (9), 284.10.1007/s00894-023-05695-1. PubMed DOI PMC

Stewart J. J. P. Optimization of parameters for semiempirical methods VI: more modifications to the NDDO approximations and re-optimization of parameters. J. Mol. Model. 2013, 19 (1), 1–32. 10.1007/s00894-012-1667-x. PubMed DOI PMC

Spiegelman F.; Tarrat N.; Cuny J.; Dontot L.; Posenitskiy E.; Martí C.; Simon A.; Rapacioli M. Density-functional tight-binding: basic concepts and applications to molecules and clusters. Adv. Phys. X 2020, 5 (1), 171025210.1080/23746149.2019.1710252. PubMed DOI PMC

Elstner M.; Seifert G. Density functional tight binding. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., A 2014, 372, 20120483.10.1098/rsta.2012.0483. PubMed DOI

Gaus M.; Cui Q.; Elstner M. Density functional tight binding: application to organic and biological molecules. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 2014, 4 (1), 49–61. 10.1002/wcms.1156. DOI

Grimme S.; Antony J.; Ehrlich S.; Krieg H. A consistent and accurate ab initio parametrization of density functional dispersion correction (DFT-D) for the 94 elements HPu. J. Chem. Phys. 2010, 132, 154104.10.1063/1.3382344. PubMed DOI

Caldeweyher E.; Ehlert S.; Hansen A.; Neugebauer H.; Spicher S.; Bannwarth C.; Grimme S. A generally applicable atomic-charge dependent London dispersion correction. J. Chem. Phys. 2019, 150 (15), 154122.10.1063/1.5090222. PubMed DOI

Řezáč J. Empirical Self-Consistent Correction for the Description of Hydrogen Bonds in DFTB3. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2017, 13 (10), 4804–4817. 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00629. PubMed DOI

Bannwarth C.; Caldeweyher E.; Ehlert S.; Hansen A.; Pracht P.; Seibert J.; Spicher S.; Grimme S. Extended tight-binding quantum chemistry methods. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Comput. Mol. Sci. 2021, 11 (2), e149310.1002/wcms.1493. DOI

Grimme S.; Bannwarth C.; Shushkov P. A Robust and Accurate Tight-Binding Quantum Chemical Method for Structures, Vibrational Frequencies, and Noncovalent Interactions of Large Molecular Systems Parametrized for All spd-Block Elements (Z = 1–86). J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2017, 13 (5), 1989–2009. 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00118. PubMed DOI

Bannwarth C.; Ehlert S.; Grimme S. GFN2-xTB—An Accurate and Broadly Parametrized Self-Consistent Tight-Binding Quantum Chemical Method with Multipole Electrostatics and Density-Dependent Dispersion Contributions. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2019, 15 (3), 1652–1671. 10.1021/acs.jctc.8b01176. PubMed DOI

Onufriev A. V.; Case D. A. Generalized Born Implicit Solvent Models for Biomolecules. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2019, 48, 275–296. 10.1146/annurev-biophys-052118-115325. PubMed DOI PMC

Izadi S.; Harris R. C.; Fenley M. O.; Onufriev A. V. Accuracy Comparison of Generalized Born Models in the Calculation of Electrostatic Binding Free Energies. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2018, 14 (3), 1656–1670. 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00886. PubMed DOI

Klamt A. The COSMO and COSMO-RS solvation models. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Comput. Mol. Sci. 2018, 8 (1), e133810.1002/wcms.1338. DOI

Wagoner J. A.; Baker N. A. Assessing implicit models for nonpolar mean solvation forces: The importance of dispersion and volume terms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2006, 103 (22), 8331–8336. 10.1073/pnas.0600118103. PubMed DOI PMC

Tan C.; Tan Y.-H.; Luo R. Implicit Nonpolar Solvent Models. J. Phys. Chem. B 2007, 111 (42), 12263–12274. 10.1021/jp073399n. PubMed DOI

Mobley D. L.; Bayly C. I.; Cooper M. D.; Shirts M. R.; Dill K. A. Small Molecule Hydration Free Energies in Explicit Solvent: An Extensive Test of Fixed-Charge Atomistic Simulations. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2009, 5 (2), 350–358. 10.1021/ct800409d. PubMed DOI PMC

Tuccinardi T. What is the current value of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods in drug discovery?. Expert Opin. Drug Discovery 2021, 16 (11), 1233–1237. 10.1080/17460441.2021.1942836. PubMed DOI

Genheden S.; Ryde U. The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate ligand-binding affinities. Expert Opin. Drug Discovery 2015, 10 (5), 449–461. 10.1517/17460441.2015.1032936. PubMed DOI PMC

Wang E.; Sun H.; Wang J.; Wang Z.; Liu H.; Zhang J. Z. H.; Hou T. End-Point Binding Free Energy Calculation with MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA: Strategies and Applications in Drug Design. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119 (16), 9478–9508. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00055. PubMed DOI

Raha K.; Peters M. B.; Wang B.; Yu N.; Wollacott A. M.; Westerhoff L. M.; Merz K. M. The role of quantum mechanics in structure-based drug design. Drug Discovery Today 2007, 12 (17), 725–731. 10.1016/j.drudis.2007.07.006. PubMed DOI

Peters M. B.; Raha K.; Merz K. M. Jr. Quantum mechanics in structure-based drug design. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Develop. 2006, 9 (3), 370–379. PubMed

Hayik S. A.; Dunbrack R. Jr.; Merz K. M. Jr Mixed Quantum Mechanics/Molecular Mechanics Scoring Function To Predict Protein–Ligand Binding Affinity. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2010, 6 (10), 3079–3091. 10.1021/ct100315g. PubMed DOI PMC

Raha K.; Merz K. M. A Quantum Mechanics-Based Scoring Function: Study of Zinc Ion-Mediated Ligand Binding. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126 (4), 1020–1021. 10.1021/ja038496i. PubMed DOI

Raha K.; Merz K. M. Large-Scale Validation of a Quantum Mechanics Based Scoring Function: Predicting the Binding Affinity and the Binding Mode of a Diverse Set of Protein–Ligand Complexes. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48 (14), 4558–4575. 10.1021/jm048973n. PubMed DOI

Mikulskis P.; Genheden S.; Wichmann K.; Ryde U. A semiempirical approach to ligand-binding affinities: Dependence on the Hamiltonian and corrections. J. Comput. Chem. 2012, 33 (12), 1179–1189. 10.1002/jcc.22949. PubMed DOI

Lepšík M.; Řezáč J.; Kolář M.; Pecina A.; Hobza P.; Fanfrlík J. The Semiempirical Quantum Mechanical Scoring Function for In Silico Drug Design. ChemPlusChem. 2013, 78 (9), 921–931. 10.1002/cplu.201300199. PubMed DOI

Pathik S. B.; Dobeš P.; Fanfrlík J.; Řezáč J.; Paruch K.; Bronowska A.; Lepšík M.; Hobza P. Quantum Mechanical Scoring: Structural and Energetic Insights into Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 2 Inhibition by Pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidines. Curr. Comput.-Aided Drug Des. 2013, 9 (1), 118–129. 10.2174/1573409911309010011. PubMed DOI

Pecina A.; Eyrilmez S. M.; Köprülüoğlu C.; Miriyala V. M.; Lepšík M.; Fanfrlík J.; Řezáč J.; Hobza P. SQM/COSMO Scoring Function: Reliable Quantum-Mechanical Tool for Sampling and Ranking in Structure-Based Drug Design. ChemPlusChem. 2020, 85 (11), 2362–2371. 10.1002/cplu.202000120. PubMed DOI

Fanfrlík J.; Bronowska A. K.; Řezáč J.; Přenosil O.; Konvalinka J.; Hobza P. A Reliable Docking/Scoring Scheme Based on the Semiempirical Quantum Mechanical PM6-DH2Method Accurately Covering Dispersion and H-Bonding: HIV-1 Protease with 22 Ligands. J. Phys. Chem. B 2010, 114 (39), 12666–12678. 10.1021/jp1032965. PubMed DOI

Pecina A.; Meier R.; Fanfrlík J.; Lepšík M.; Řezáč J.; Hobza P.; Baldauf C. The SQM/COSMO filter: reliable native pose identification based on the quantum-mechanical description of protein–ligand interactions and implicit COSMO solvation. Chem. Commun. 2016, 52 (16), 3312–3315. 10.1039/C5CC09499B. PubMed DOI

Kříž K.; Řezáč J. Reparametrization of the COSMO Solvent Model for Semiempirical Methods PM6 and PM7. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2019, 59 (1), 229–235. 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00681. PubMed DOI

Pecina A.; Fanfrlík J.; Lepšík M.; Řezáč J. SQM2.20: Semiempirical quantum-mechanical scoring function yields DFT-quality protein–ligand binding affinity predictions in minutes. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15 (1), 1127.10.1038/s41467-024-45431-8. PubMed DOI PMC

Ehrlich S.; Göller A. H.; Grimme S. Towards full Quantum-Mechanics-based Protein–Ligand Binding Affinities. ChemPhysChem 2017, 18 (8), 898–905. 10.1002/cphc.201700082. PubMed DOI

Ryde U.; Söderhjelm P. Ligand-Binding Affinity Estimates Supported by Quantum-Mechanical Methods. Chem. Rev. 2016, 116 (9), 5520–5566. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00630. PubMed DOI

Liu F.-T.; Stowell S. R. The role of galectins in immunity and infection. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2023, 23 (8), 479–494. 10.1038/s41577-022-00829-7. PubMed DOI PMC

Bouffette S.; Botez I.; De Ceuninck F. Targeting galectin-3 in inflammatory and fibrotic diseases. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2023, 44 (8), 519–531. 10.1016/j.tips.2023.06.001. PubMed DOI

Schrödinger Release 2023–3, Schrödinger, LLC: New York, NY, 2023.

Madhavi Sastry G.; Adzhigirey M.; Day T.; Annabhimoju R.; Sherman W. Protein and ligand preparation: parameters, protocols, and influence on virtual screening enrichments. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2013, 27 (3), 221–234. 10.1007/s10822-013-9644-8. PubMed DOI

Johnston R. C.; Yao K.; Kaplan Z.; Chelliah M.; Leswing K.; Seekins S.; Watts S.; Calkins D.; Chief Elk J.; Jerome S. V.; et al. Epik: pKa and Protonation State Prediction through Machine Learning. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2023, 19 (8), 2380–2388. 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00044. PubMed DOI

Philipp D. M.; Friesner R. A. Mixed ab initio QM/MM modeling using frozen orbitals and tests with alanine dipeptide and tetrapeptide. J. Comput. Chem. 1999, 20 (14), 1468–1494. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(19991115)20:14<1468::AID-JCC2>3.0.CO;2-0. DOI

Murphy R. B.; Philipp D. M.; Friesner R. A. A mixed quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics (QM/MM) method for large-scale modeling of chemistry in protein environments. J. Comput. Chem. 2000, 21 (16), 1442–1457. 10.1002/1096-987X(200012)21:16<1442::AID-JCC3>3.0.CO;2-O. DOI

Banks J. L.; Beard H. S.; Cao Y.; Cho A. E.; Damm W.; Farid R.; Felts A. K.; Halgren T. A.; Mainz D. T.; Maple J. R.; et al. Integrated Modeling Program, Applied Chemical Theory (IMPACT). J. Comput. Chem. 2005, 26 (16), 1752–1780. 10.1002/jcc.20292. PubMed DOI PMC

Kaminski G. A.; Friesner R. A.; Tirado-Rives J.; Jorgensen W. L. Evaluation and Reparametrization of the OPLS-AA Force Field for Proteins via Comparison with Accurate Quantum Chemical Calculations on Peptides. J. Phys. Chem. B 2001, 105 (28), 6474–6487. 10.1021/jp003919d. DOI

Lu C.; Wu C.; Ghoreishi D.; Chen W.; Wang L.; Damm W.; Ross G. A.; Dahlgren M. K.; Russell E.; Von Bargen C. D.; et al. OPLS4: Improving Force Field Accuracy on Challenging Regimes of Chemical Space. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2021, 17 (7), 4291–4300. 10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00302. PubMed DOI

Friesner R. A.; Banks J. L.; Murphy R. B.; Halgren T. A.; Klicic J. J.; Mainz D. T.; Repasky M. P.; Knoll E. H.; Shelley M.; Perry J. K.; et al. Glide: A New Approach for Rapid, Accurate Docking and Scoring. 1. Method and Assessment of Docking Accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47 (7), 1739–1749. 10.1021/jm0306430. PubMed DOI

Li J.; Abel R.; Zhu K.; Cao Y.; Zhao S.; Friesner R. A. The VSGB 2.0 model: A next generation energy model for high resolution protein structure modeling. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 2011, 79 (10), 2794–2812. 10.1002/prot.23106. PubMed DOI PMC

Case D. A.; Ben-Shalom I. Y.; Brozell S. R.; Cerutti D. S.; Cheatham I. T. E.; Cruzeiro V. W. D.; Darden T.A.; Duke R. E.; Ghoreishi D.; Gilson M. K.; et al.AMBER 2018, University of California: San Francisco, 2018

Wang E.; Liu H.; Wang J.; Weng G.; Sun H.; Wang Z.; Kang Y.; Hou T. Development and Evaluation of MM/GBSA Based on a Variable Dielectric GB Model for Predicting Protein–Ligand Binding Affinities. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2020, 60 (11), 5353–5365. 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00024. PubMed DOI

Wang E.; Fu W.; Jiang D.; Sun H.; Wang J.; Zhang X.; Weng G.; Liu H.; Tao P.; Hou T. VAD-MM/GBSA: A Variable Atomic Dielectric MM/GBSA Model for Improved Accuracy in Protein–Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculations. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2021, 61 (6), 2844–2856. 10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00091. PubMed DOI

Miller B. R. III; McGee T. D. Jr.; Swails J. M.; Homeyer N.; Gohlke H.; Roitberg A. E. MMPBSA.py: An Efficient Program for End-State Free Energy Calculations. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8 (9), 3314–3321. 10.1021/ct300418h. PubMed DOI

Spicher S.; Grimme S. Robust Atomistic Modeling of Materials, Organometallic, and Biochemical Systems. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2020, 59 (36), 15665–15673. 10.1002/anie.202004239. PubMed DOI PMC

Ehlert S.; Stahn M.; Spicher S.; Grimme S. Robust and Efficient Implicit Solvation Model for Fast Semiempirical Methods. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2021, 17 (7), 4250–4261. 10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00471. PubMed DOI

Spicher S.; Grimme S. Single-Point Hessian Calculations for Improved Vibrational Frequencies and Rigid-Rotor-Harmonic-Oscillator Thermodynamics. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2021, 17 (3), 1701–1714. 10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01306. PubMed DOI

Stahn M.; Ehlert S.; Grimme S. Extended Conductor-like Polarizable Continuum Solvation Model (CPCM-X) for Semiempirical Methods. J. Phys. Chem. A 2023, 127 (33), 7036–7043. 10.1021/acs.jpca.3c04382. PubMed DOI

Elstner M.; Porezag D.; Jungnickel G.; Elsner J.; Haugk M.; Frauenheim T.; Suhai S.; Seifert G. Self-consistent-charge density-functional tight-binding method for simulations of complex materials properties. Phys. Rev. B 1998, 58, 7260.10.1103/PhysRevB.58.7260. DOI

Hourahine B.; Aradi B.; Blum V.; Bonafé F.; Buccheri A.; Camacho C.; Cevallos C.; Deshaye M. Y.; Dumitrică T.; Dominguez A. DFTB+, a software package for efficient approximate density functional theory based atomistic simulations. J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 152, 124101.10.1063/1.5143190. PubMed DOI

Gaus M.; Cui Q.; Elstner M. DFTB3: Extension of the Self-Consistent-Charge Density-Functional Tight-Binding Method (SCC-DFTB). J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2011, 7, 931–948. 10.1021/ct100684s. PubMed DOI PMC

Caldeweyher E.; Bannwarth C.; Grimme S. Extension of the D3 dispersion coefficient model. J. Chem. Phys. 2017, 147, 03411210.1063/1.4993215. PubMed DOI

Gaus M.; Goez A.; Elstner M. Parametrization and Benchmark of DFTB3 for Organic Molecules. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2013, 9, 338–354. 10.1021/ct300849w. PubMed DOI

Gaus M.; Lu X.; Elstner M.; Cui Q. Parameterization of DFTB3/3OB for Sulfur and Phosphorus for Chemical and Biological Applications. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2014, 10, 1518–1537. 10.1021/ct401002w. PubMed DOI PMC

Kubillus M.; Kubař T.; Gaus M.; Řezáč J.; Elstner M. Parameterization of the DFTB3Method for Br, Ca, Cl, F, I, K, and Na in Organic and Biological Systems. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015, 11, 332–342. 10.1021/ct5009137. PubMed DOI

Klamt A.; Schüürmann G. COSMO: a new approach to dielectric screening in solvents with explicit expressions for the screening energy and its gradient. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 1993, 5, 799–805. 10.1039/P29930000799. DOI

MOPAC (version 22.1.1); 2024.

Grimme S. Supramolecular Binding Thermodynamics by Dispersion-Corrected Density Functional Theory. Chemistry–A. European Journal 2012, 18 (32), 9955–9964. 10.1002/chem.201200497. PubMed DOI

Landrum G. A.; Riniker S. Combining IC50 or Ki Values from Different Sources Is a Source of Significant Noise. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2024, 64 (5), 1560–1567. 10.1021/acs.jcim.4c00049. PubMed DOI PMC

Verteramo M. L.; Ignjatović M. M.; Kumar R.; Wernersson S.; Ekberg V.; Wallerstein J.; Carlström G.; Chadimová V.; Leffler H.; Zetterberg F.; et al. Interplay of halogen bonding and solvation in protein–ligand binding. iScience 2024, 27 (4), 10963610.1016/j.isci.2024.109636. PubMed DOI PMC

Hahn D. F.; Gapsys V.; de Groot B. L.; Mobley D. L.; Tresadern G. Current State of Open Source Force Fields in Protein–Ligand Binding Affinity Predictions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2024, 64 (13), 5063–5076. 10.1021/acs.jcim.4c00417. PubMed DOI PMC

Ghosh A.; Rapp C. S.; Friesner R. A. Generalized Born Model Based on a Surface Integral Formulation. J. Phys. Chem. B 1998, 102 (52), 10983–10990. 10.1021/jp982533o. DOI

Onufriev A.; Bashford D.; Case D. A. Exploring protein native states and large-scale conformational changes with a modified generalized born model. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 2004, 55 (2), 383–394. 10.1002/prot.20033. PubMed DOI

Sigalov G.; Fenley A.; Onufriev A. Analytical electrostatics for biomolecules: Beyond the generalized Born approximation. J. Chem. Phys. 2006, 124 (12), 124902.10.1063/1.2177251. PubMed DOI