Cited by 177Computational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Degradation and InhibitorsAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

Predictions of Ligand Selectivity from Absolute Binding Free Energy Calculations

Open access
Aldeghi, Matteo, Heifetz, Alexander, Bodkin, Michael J., Knapp, Stefan, Biggin, Philip C.·2017·Journal of the American Chemical Society

Abstract

Binding selectivity is a requirement for the development of a safe drug, and it is a critical property for chemical probes used in preclinical target validation. Engineering selectivity adds considerable complexity to the rational design of new drugs, as it involves the optimization of multiple binding affinities. Computationally, the prediction of binding selectivity is a challenge, and generally applicable methodologies are still not available to the computational and medicinal chemistry communities. Absolute binding free energy calculations based on alchemical pathways provide a rigorous framework for affinity predictions and could thus offer a general approach to the problem. We evaluated the performance of free energy calculations based on molecular dynamics for the prediction of selectivity by estimating the affinity profile of three bromodomain inhibitors across multiple bromodomain families, and by comparing the results to isothermal titration calorimetry data. Two case studies were considered. In the first one, the affinities of two similar ligands for seven bromodomains were calculated and returned excellent agreement with experiment (mean unsigned error of 0.81 kcal/mol and Pearson correlation of 0.75). In this test case, we also show how the preferred binding orientation of a ligand for different proteins can be estimated via free energy calculations. In the second case, the affinities of a broad-spectrum inhibitor for 22 bromodomains were calculated and returned a more modest accuracy (mean unsigned error of 1.76 kcal/mol and Pearson correlation of 0.48); however, the reparametrization of a sulfonamide moiety improved the agreement with experiment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jacs.6b11467

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 94 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Myszka D. G.; Abdiche Y. N.; Arisaka F.; Byron O.; Eisenstein E.; Hensley P.; Thomson J. A.; Lombardo C. R.; Schwarz F.; Stafford W.; Doyle M. L. J. Biomol. Tech. 2003, 14, 247. 14715884 PMC2279960
  2. Mobley D. L.; Gilson M. K. bioRxiv 2016, 074625.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aldeghi, M., Heifetz, A., Bodkin, M. J., Knapp, S., & Biggin, P. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Evotec (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
Corresponding author
Biggin, Philip C.
Venue
Journal of the American Chemical Society
Published
2016-12-23
Volume
139
Issue
2
Pages
946-957
ISSN
  • 0002-7863 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5126
OpenAlex
W2560915683
Cited by
177
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14
FWCI
14.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Chemical Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (092809/Z/10/Z)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/G037280/1)
  • Evotec AG (NA)
  • Structural Genomics Consortium (NA)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
Keywords
absolute binding free energy, alchemical free energy calculations, molecular dynamics, bromodomain inhibitors, ligand binding orientation, target validation, chemical probes

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