The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate ligand-binding affinities
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: The molecular mechanics energies combined with the Poisson-Boltzmann or generalized Born and surface area continuum solvation (MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA) methods are popular approaches to estimate the free energy of the binding of small ligands to biological macromolecules. They are typically based on molecular dynamics simulations of the receptor-ligand complex and are therefore intermediate in both accuracy and computational effort between empirical scoring and strict alchemical perturbation methods. They have been applied to a large number of systems with varying success. AREAS COVERED: The authors review the use of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to calculate ligand-binding affinities, with an emphasis on calibration, testing and validation, as well as attempts to improve the methods, rather than on specific applications. EXPERT OPINION: MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA are attractive approaches owing to their modular nature and that they do not require calculations on a training set. They have been used successfully to reproduce and rationalize experimental findings and to improve the results of virtual screening and docking. However, they contain several crude and questionable approximations, for example, the lack of conformational entropy and information about the number and free energy of water molecules in the binding site. Moreover, there are many variants of the method and their performance varies strongly with the tested system. Likewise, most attempts to ameliorate the methods with more accurate approaches, for example, quantum-mechanical calculations, polarizable force fields or improved solvation have deteriorated the results.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Kollman, P. A., Massova, I., Reyes, C., Kuhn, B., Huo, S., Chong, L., Lee, M., Lee, T., Duan, Y., Wang, W., et al. (2000) · Accounts of Chemical Research · doi:10.1021/ar000033j · Cited by 4,978
Sun, H., Li, Y., Tian, S., Xu, L., & Hou, T. (2014) · Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. · doi:10.1039/c4cp01388c · Cited by 738
Cited by
gmx_MMPBSA: A New Tool to Perform End-State Free Energy Calculations with GROMACS
Valdés-Tresanco, M. S., Valdés-Tresanco, M. E., Valiente, P. A., & Moreno, E. (2021) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00645 · Cited by 3,393
Isolation of SARS-CoV-2-related coronavirus from Malayan pangolins
Xiao, K., Zhai, J., Feng, Y., Zhou, N., Zhang, X., Zou, J.-J., Li, N., Guo, Y., Li, X., Shen, X., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2313-x · Cited by 728
Molecular Dynamics Simulations in Drug Discovery and Pharmaceutical Development
Salo-Ahen, O. M. H., Alanko, I., Bhadane, R., Bonvin, A. M. J. J., Honorato, R. V., Hossain, S., Juffer, A. H., Kabedev, A., Lahtela-Kakkonen, M., Larsen, A. S., et al. (2020) · Processes · doi:10.3390/pr9010071 · Cited by 659
Molecular dynamics simulations and novel drug discovery
Liu, X., Shi, D., Zhou, S., Liu, H., Liu, H., & Yao, X. (2018) · Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery · doi:10.1080/17460441.2018.1403419 · Cited by 518
A critical overview of computational approaches employed for COVID-19 drug discovery
Muratov, E. N., Amaro, R., Andrade, C. H., Brown, N., Ekins, S., Fourches, D., Isayev, O., Kozakov, D., Medina-Franco, J. L., Merz, K. M., et al. (2021) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/d0cs01065k · Cited by 206
Metadata
- Authors
- Genheden, S., & Ryde, U.
- Venue
- Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-04-02
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 449-461
- ISSN
- 1746-0441 (ISSN-L)
- 1746-045X
- OpenAlex
- W2095719702
- Cited by
- 5,534
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 154.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate ligand-binding affinities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1517/17460441.2015.1032936
- The paper
- Genheden, S., & Ryde, U. (2015). The MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods to estimate ligand-binding affinities. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery. https://doi.org/10.1517/17460441.2015.1032936
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.