These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Assessing the Performance of MM/PBSA, MM/GBSA, and QM-MM/GBSA Approaches on Protein/Carbohydrate Complexes: Effect of Implicit Solvent Models, QM Methods, and Entropic Contributions.
    Author: Mishra SK, Koča J.
    Journal: J Phys Chem B; 2018 Aug 30; 122(34):8113-8121. PubMed ID: 30084252.
    Abstract:
    Rapid and accurate binding affinity prediction of protein-carbohydrate complexes is a major challenge in glycomimetics design. Among the existing computational techniques, end-point methods have received considerable interest because of their low computational cost. However, significant obstacles remain when such methods are applied to protein-glycan complexes. This article reports the performance of end-point free-energy calculation methods: molecular mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann surface area (MM/PBSA), MM/generalized Born surface area (MM/GBSA), and quantum mechanics-MM/GBSA (QM-MM/GBSA) on monosaccharides bound to RSL lectin from Ralstonia solanacearum. A careful investigation of the molecular dynamics simulation length, van der Waals radii sets, GB models, QM Hamiltonians, and entropic compensation has been made, and the results are compared with the experimental binding free energies from isothermal titration calorimetry/surface plasmon resonance measurements. The binding free energies using implicit solvent methods are found to be sensitive to the simulation length, radii set, GB model, and QM Hamiltonian. A simulation length of 10 ns using the radii set mbondi provides the best agreement with the experimental values ( r2 = 0.96) by MM/PBSA. The GBHCT model is in accord with the experimental values in MM/GBSA ( r2 = 0.91) or in combination with parameterized model number 6 (PM6) ( r2 = 0.98) in QM-MM/GBSA. Out of 12 QM Hamiltonians tested, PM6, density functional theory-based tight binding (DFTB), and their variants proved to be more efficient than other semiempirical methods. These methods perform equally well in predicting both absolute and relative binding free energies.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]