Accurate absolute free energies for ligand–protein binding based on non-equilibrium approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accurate calculation of the binding free energy for arbitrary ligand-protein pairs is a considerable challenge in computer-aided drug discovery. Recently, it has been demonstrated that current state-of-the-art molecular dynamics (MD) based methods are capable of making highly accurate predictions. Conventional MD-based approaches rely on the first principles of statistical mechanics and assume equilibrium sampling of the phase space. In the current work we demonstrate that accurate absolute binding free energies (ABFE) can also be obtained via theoretically rigorous non-equilibrium approaches. Our investigation of ligands binding to bromodomains and T4 lysozyme reveals that both equilibrium and non-equilibrium approaches converge to the same results. The non-equilibrium approach achieves the same level of accuracy and convergence as an equilibrium free energy perturbation (FEP) method enhanced by Hamiltonian replica exchange. We also compare uni- and bi-directional non-equilibrium approaches and demonstrate that considering the work distributions from both forward and reverse directions provides substantial accuracy gains. In summary, non-equilibrium ABFE calculations are shown to yield reliable and well-converged estimates of protein-ligand binding affinity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".