Simulation-Based Approaches for Determining Membrane Permeability of Small Compounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting the rate of nonfacilitated permeation of solutes across lipid bilayers is important to drug design, toxicology, and signaling. These rates can be estimated using molecular dynamics simulations combined with the inhomogeneous solubility-diffusion model, which requires calculation of the potential of mean force and position-dependent diffusivity of the solute along the transmembrane axis. In this paper, we assess the efficiency and accuracy of several methods for the calculation of the permeability of a model DMPC bilayer to urea, benzoic acid, and codeine. We compare umbrella sampling, replica exchange umbrella sampling, adaptive biasing force, and multiple-walker adaptive biasing force for the calculation of the transmembrane PMF. No definitive advantage for any of these methods in their ability to predict the membrane permeability coefficient Pm was found, provided that a sufficiently long equilibration is performed. For diffusivities, a Bayesian inference method was compared to a generalized Langevin method, both being sensitive to chosen parameters and the slow relaxation of membrane defects. Agreement within 1.5 log units of the computed Pm with experiment is found for all permeants and methods. Remaining discrepancies can likely be attributed to limitations of the force field as well as slowly relaxing collective movements within the lipid environment. Numerical calculations based on model profiles show that Pm can be reliably estimated from only a few data points, leading to recommendations for calculating Pm from simulations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".