Benchmarking Force Field and the ANI Neural Network Potentials for the Torsional Potential Energy Surface of Biaryl Drug Fragments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many drug molecules contain biaryl fragments, resulting in a torsional barrier corresponding to rotation around the bond linking the aryls. The potential energy surfaces of these torsions vary significantly due to steric and electronic effects, ultimately affecting the relative stability of the molecular conformations in the protein-bound and solution states. Simulations of protein--ligand binding require accurate computational models to represent the intramolecular interactions to provide accurate predictions of the structure and dynamics of binding. In this paper, we compare four force fields (Generalized AMBER Force Field (GAFF), Open Force Field (OpenFF), CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF), Optimized Potentials for Liquid Simulations (OPLS)) and two neural network potentials (ANI-2x, ANI-1ccx) in their ability to predict the torsional potential energy surfaces of 88 biaryls extracted from drug fragments. The mean of the absolute deviation over the full PES (MADF) and the mean absolute deviation of the torsion rotational barrier height (MADB) relative to high-level ab initio reference data was used as a measure of accuracy. In comparison to high-level ab-initio data, ANI-1ccx was most accurate for predicting the barrier height (MADF: 0.5~kcal/mol, MADB:~0.8~kcal/mol), followed closely by ANI-2x (MADF: 0.5~kcal/mol, MADB:~1.0~kcal/mol), then CGenFF (MADF: 0.8~kcal/mol, MADB: 1.3~kcal/mol), OpenFF (MADF: 1.5~kcal/mol, MADB: 1.4~kcal/mol), GAFF (MADF: 1.2~kcal/mol, MADB: 2.6~kcal/mol), and finally OPLS (MADF: 1.5~kcal/mol, MADB: 2.8~kcal/mol). Significantly, the NNPs are systematically more accurate and more reliable than any of the force fields. As a practical example, the neural network potential/molecular mechanics (NNP/MM) method was used to simulate the isomerization of ozanimod, a drug used for multiple sclerosis. Multi-nanosecond molecular dynamics (MD) simulations in an explicit aqueous solvent were performed, as well as umbrella sampling and adaptive biasing force enhanced sampling techniques. These theories predicted a rate of isomerization of $4.30 \times 10^{-1}$ ns$^{-1}$, which is consistent with direct MD 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".