scholarly journals Optimized Halogen Atomic Radii for PBSA Calculations Using Off-Center Point-Charges

Author(s):  
Andreia Fortuna ◽  
Paulo J. Costa

<div>In force field methods, the usage of off-center point-charges, also called extra-points (EPs), is a common strategy to tackle the anisotropy of the electrostatic potential of covalently-bonded halogens (X), thus allowing the description of halogen bonds (XBs) at the molecular mechanics / molecular dynamics (MM/MD) level. Diverse EP implementations exist in the literature differing on the charge sets and/or the X–EP distances. Poisson–Boltzmann and surface area (PBSA) calculations can be used to obtain solvation free energies (∆G solv ) of small molecules, often to compute binding free energies (∆G bind ) at the MM PBSA level. This method depends, among other parameters, on the empirical assignment of atomic radii (PB radii). Given the multiplicity of off-center point-charges models and the lack of specific PB radii for halogens compatible with such implementations, in this work we assessed the performance of PBSA calculations for the estimation of ∆G solv values in water (∆G hyd ), also conducting an optimization of the halogen PB radii (Cl, Br, and I) for each EP model. We not only expand the usage of EP models in the scope of the General AMBER Force Field (GAFF) but also provide the first optimized halogen PB radii in the context of the CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF), thus contributing to improving the description of halogenated compounds in PBSA calculations.</div>

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreia Fortuna ◽  
Paulo J. Costa

<div>In force field methods, the usage of off-center point-charges, also called extra-points (EPs), is a common strategy to tackle the anisotropy of the electrostatic potential of covalently-bonded halogens (X), thus allowing the description of halogen bonds (XBs) at the molecular mechanics / molecular dynamics (MM/MD) level. Diverse EP implementations exist in the literature differing on the charge sets and/or the X–EP distances. Poisson–Boltzmann and surface area (PBSA) calculations can be used to obtain solvation free energies (∆G solv ) of small molecules, often to compute binding free energies (∆G bind ) at the MM PBSA level. This method depends, among other parameters, on the empirical assignment of atomic radii (PB radii). Given the multiplicity of off-center point-charges models and the lack of specific PB radii for halogens compatible with such implementations, in this work we assessed the performance of PBSA calculations for the estimation of ∆G solv values in water (∆G hyd ), also conducting an optimization of the halogen PB radii (Cl, Br, and I) for each EP model. We not only expand the usage of EP models in the scope of the General AMBER Force Field (GAFF) but also provide the first optimized halogen PB radii in the context of the CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF), thus contributing to improving the description of halogenated compounds in PBSA calculations.</div>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreia Fortuna ◽  
Paulo J. Costa

<div>In force field methods, the usage of off-center point-charges, also called extra-points (EPs), is a common strategy to tackle the anisotropy of the electrostatic potential of covalently-bonded halogens (X), thus allowing the description of halogen bonds (XBs) at the molecular mechanics / molecular dynamics (MM/MD) level. Diverse EP implementations exist in the literature differing on the charge sets and/or the X–EP distances. Poisson–Boltzmann and surface area (PBSA) calculations can be used to obtain solvation free energies (∆G solv ) of small molecules, often to compute binding free energies (∆G bind ) at the MM PBSA level. This method depends, among other parameters, on the empirical assignment of atomic radii (PB radii). Given the multiplicity of off-center point-charges models and the lack of specific PB radii for halogens compatible with such implementations, in this work we assessed the performance of PBSA calculations for the estimation of ∆G solv values in water (∆G hyd ), also conducting an optimization of the halogen PB radii (Cl, Br, and I) for each EP model. We not only expand the usage of EP models in the scope of the General AMBER Force Field (GAFF) but also provide the first optimized halogen PB radii in the context of the CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF), thus contributing to improving the description of halogenated compounds in PBSA calculations.</div>


2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 3570-3577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia A. Martins ◽  
Sergio F. Sousa ◽  
Maria João Ramos ◽  
Pedro A. Fernandes

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 2553-2558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devleena Shivakumar ◽  
Edward Harder ◽  
Wolfgang Damm ◽  
Richard A. Friesner ◽  
Woody Sherman

ADMET & DMPK ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Mecklenfeld ◽  
Gabriele Raabe

<p class="ADMETabstracttext">Rational drug design featuring explicit solubility considerations can greatly benefit from molecular dynamics simulations, as they allow for the prediction of the Gibbs free energy of solvation and thus relative solubilities. In our previous work (A. Mecklenfeld, G. Raabe. J. Chem. Theory Comput. <strong>13 </strong>no. 12 (2017) 6266–6274), we have compared solvation free energy results obtained with the General Amber Force Field (GAFF) and its default restrained electrostatic potential (RESP) partial charges to those obtained by modified implicitly polarized charges (IPolQ-Mod) for an implicit representation of impactful polarization effects. In this work, we have adapted Lennard-Jones parameters for GAFF atom types in combination with IPolQ-Mod to further improve the accuracies of solvation free energy and liquid density predictions. We thereby focus on prominent atom types in common drugs. For the refitting, 357 respectively 384 systems were considered for free energies and densities and validation was performed for 142 free energies and 100 densities of binary mixtures. By the in-depth comparison of simulation results for default GAFF, GAFF with IPolQ-Mod and our new set of parameters, which we label GAFF/IPolQ-Mod+LJ-Fit, we can clearly highlight the improvements of our new model for the description of both relative solubilities and fluid phase behaviour.</p>


2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (32) ◽  
pp. 2749-2758 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noor Asidah Mohamed ◽  
Richard T. Bradshaw ◽  
Jonathan W. Essex

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 1509-1519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devleena Shivakumar ◽  
Joshua Williams ◽  
Yujie Wu ◽  
Wolfgang Damm ◽  
John Shelley ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document