Cited by 72Protein Structure and DynamicsComputational Drug Discovery MethodsAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

Computational Alanine Scanning Mutagenesis: MM-PBSA vs TI

Open access
Martins, Sílvia A., Perez, Marta A. S., Moreira, Irina S., Sousa, Sérgio F., Ramos, M. J., Fernandes, P. A.·2013·Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation

Abstract

Understanding protein-protein association and being able to determine the crucial residues responsible for their association (hot-spots) is a key issue with huge practical applications such as rational drug design and protein engineering. A variety of computational methods exist to detect hot-spots residues, but the development of a fast and accurate quantitative alanine scanning mutagenesis (ASM) continues to be crucial. Using four protein-protein complexes, we have compared a variation of the standard computational ASM protocol developed at our group, based on the Molecular Mechanics/Poisson-Boltzmann Surface Area (MM-PBSA) approach, against Thermodynamic Integration (TI), a well-known and accurate but computationally expensive method. To compare the efficiency and the accuracy of the two methods, we have calculated the protein-protein binding free energy differences upon alanine mutation of interfacial residues (ΔΔGbind). In relation to the experimental ΔΔGbind values, the average error obtained with TI was 1.53 kcal/mol, while the ASM protocol resulted in an average error of 1.18 kcal/mol. The results demonstrate that the much faster ASM protocol gives results at the same level of accuracy as the TI method but at a fraction of the computational time required to run TI. This ASM protocol is therefore a strong and efficient alternative to the systematic evaluation of protein-protein interfaces, involving hundreds of amino acid residues in search of hot-spots.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/ct4000372

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martins, S. A., Perez, M. A. S., Moreira, I. S., Sousa, S. F., Ramos, M. J., & Fernandes, P. A.
Affiliations
Universidade do Porto (PT)
Corresponding author
Fernandes, P. A.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Published
2013-02-25
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
1311-1319
ISSN
  • 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-9626
OpenAlex
W2002797885
Cited by
72
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
Keywords
alanine scanning, protein-protein binding, binding hot spots, MM-PBSA, thermodynamic integration, binding free energy, protein-protein interfaces, interfacial residues, computational efficiency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review