Evidence Hub

Blind prediction of charged ligand binding affinities in a model binding site

Rocklin GJ, Boyce SE, Fischer M, Fish I, Mobley DL, Shoichet BK, Dill KA

Journal of molecular biology, 2013

Abstract

Predicting absolute protein-ligand binding affinities remains a frontier challenge in ligand discovery and design. This becomes more difficult when ionic interactions are involved because of the large opposing solvation and electrostatic attraction energies. In a blind test, we examined whether alchemical free-energy calculations could predict binding affinities of 14 charged and 5 neutral compounds previously untested as ligands for a cavity binding site in cytochrome c peroxidase. In this simplified site, polar and cationic ligands compete with solvent to interact with a buried aspartate. Predictions were tested by calorimetry, spectroscopy, and crystallography. Of the 15 compounds predicted to bind, 13 were experimentally confirmed, while 4 compounds were false negative predictions. Predictions had a root-mean-square error of 1.95 kcal/mol to the experimental affinities, and predicted poses had an average RMSD of 1.7Å to the crystallographic poses. This test serves as a benchmark for these thermodynamically rigorous calculations at predicting binding affinities for charged compounds and gives insights into the existing sources of error, which are primarily electrostatic interactions inside proteins. Our experiments also provide a useful set of ionic binding affinities in a simplified system for testing new affinity prediction methods.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a experimental / empirical study, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free