PreprintCited by 61Computational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Structure and DynamicsReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are Deep Learning Structural Models Sufficiently Accurate for Free Energy Calculations? Application of FEP+ to AlphaFold2 Predicted Structures

Open access
Beuming, Thijs, Martín, Helena, Díaz-Rovira, Anna M., Díaz, Lucía, Guallar, Victor, Ray, Soumya S.·2022·Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Preprint — published as 10.1021/acs.jcim.2c00796 · Paper page

Abstract

The availability of AlphaFold2 has led to great excitement in the scientific community - particularly among drug hunters - due to the ability of the algorithm to predict protein structures with high accuracy. However, beyond globally accurate protein structure prediction, it remains to be determined whether ligand binding sites are predicted with sufficient accuracy in these structures to be useful in supporting computationally driven drug discovery programs. We explored this question by performing free energy perturbation (FEP) calculations on a set of well-studied protein-ligand complexes, where AlphaFold2 predictions were performed by removing all templates with >30% identity to the target protein from the training set. We observed that in most cases, the ΔΔG values for ligand transformations calculated with FEP, using these prospective AlphaFold2 structures, were comparable in accuracy to the corresponding calculations previously carried out using X-ray structures. We conclude that under the right circumstances, AlphaFold2 modeled structures are accurate enough to be used by physics-based methods such as FEP, in typical lead optimization stages of a drug discovery program.

Overview

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 · 10.1101/2022.08.16.504122

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Technol, 2020, The Rapidly Evolving Role of Cryo-EM in Drug Design, Drug Discov, 38, 91
  2. 2017, Structural Coverage of the Proteome for Pharmaceutical Applications, Drug Discov, 22, 1792
  3. 10.1126/science.abj8754 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1093/NAR/GKAB1061 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Evans, R. ; O’Neill, M. ; Pritzel, A. ; Antropova, N. ; Senior, A. ; Green, T. ; Žídek, A. ; Bates, R. ; Blackwell, S. ; Yim, J. ; Ronneberger, O. ; Bodenstein, S. ; Zielinski, M. ; Bridgland, A. ; Potapenko, A. ; Cowie, A. ; Tunyasuvunakool, K. ; Jain, R. ; Clancy, E. ; Kohli, P. ; Jumper, J. ; Hassabis, D. Protein Complex Prediction with AlphaFold-Multimer. bioRxiv, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.04.463034. · DOI · Paper page
  6. 2022, Improved Prediction of Protein-Protein Interactions Using AlphaFold2, Nat. Commun, 13, 1265, 10.1038/s41467-022-28865-w · DOI · Paper page
  7. Chang, L. ; Perez, A. AlphaFold Encodes the Principles to Identify High Affinity Peptide Binders. bioRxiv, 2022, 2022.03.18.484931. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.18.484931. · DOI
  8. Heo, L. ; Feig, M. Multi-State Modeling of G-Protein Coupled Receptors at Experimental Accuracy. Proteins 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.26382. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Technol, 2021, From Computer-Aided Drug Discovery to Computer-Driven Drug Discovery, Drug Discov, 39, 111
  10. 10.1021/ja512751q · DOI · Paper page
  11. 2009, Healthy Skepticism: Assessing Realistic Model Performance, Drug Discov, 14, 420
  12. 10.1021/acs.accounts.7b00083 · DOI
  13. 10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00538. · DOI
  14. 2016, Predicting Binding Affinities for GPCR Ligands Using Free-Energy Perturbation, ACS Omega, 1, 293, 10.1021/acsomega.6b00086 · DOI
  15. 2020, Is Structure-Based Drug Design Ready for Selectivity Optimization?, J. Chem. Inf. Model, 60, 6211, 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00815 · DOI
  16. 10.1002/prot.20740 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.sbi.2006.02.003 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1021/ci300411b · DOI
  19. 10.1002/prot.10613 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/S0022-2836(02)00470-9 · DOI
  21. 10.1093/nar/gkv342 · DOI
  22. 10.1093/nar/gky427 · DOI
  23. 10.1093/protein/12.2.85 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 2016, Critical Assessment of Methods of Protein Structure Prediction: Progress and New Directions in Round XI: Progress in CASP XI, Proteins, 84, 4, 10.1002/prot.25064 · DOI
  25. 2021, Applying and Improving AlphaFold at CASP14, Proteins, 89, 1711, 10.1002/prot.26257 · DOI
  26. 10.2174/1568026617666170414142131 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 2021, Reliable and Accurate Solution to the Induced Fit Docking Problem for Protein-Ligand Binding, J. Chem. Theory Comput, 17, 2630, 10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00136 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 2010, Exploring Hierarchical Refinement Techniques for Induced Fit Docking with Protein and Ligand Flexibility, J. Comput. Chem, 31, 1224, 10.1002/jcc.21409 · DOI
  29. 10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00302 · DOI
  30. Steinegger, M. ; Söding, J. Clustering Huge Protein Sequence Sets in Linear Time. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04964-5. · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1038/s41592-019-0437-4 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 2020, MGnify: The Microbiome Analysis Resource in 2020, Nucleic Acids Res, 48, D570
  33. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm098 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1093/nar/gkr777 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Beuming, T., Martín, H., Díaz-Rovira, A. M., Díaz, L., Guallar, V., & Ray, S. S.
Affiliations
Barcelona Supercomputing Center (ES)
Corresponding author
  • Beuming, Thijs
  • Ray, Soumya S.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2022-08-16
Volume
62
Issue
18
Pages
4351-4360
ISSN
1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4295757800
Cited by
61
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 1
FWCI
7.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (PTQ2018-009991)
  • Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI//10.13039/501100011033/, 501100011033, 10.13039/501100011033, MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501 100 011 033, 13039, .13039/501100011033, 10.13039)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Keywords
AlphaFold2, free energy perturbation, protein-ligand binding free energy, ligand binding site prediction, deep learning protein structure prediction, drug discovery, lead optimization, protein-ligand complex, binding affinity
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Ligands, Models, Structural, Prospective Studies, Protein Binding, Proteins, Thermodynamics, Molecular Dynamics Simulation

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