Drug discovery is accelerated with computational methods such as alchemical simulations to estimate ligand affinities. In particular, relative binding free energy (RBFE) simulations are beneficial for lead optimization. To use RBFE simulations to compare prospective ligands in silico, researchers first plan the simulation experiment, using graphs where nodes represent ligands and graph edges represent alchemical transformations between ligands. Recent work demonstrated that optimizing the statistical architecture of these perturbation graphs improves the accuracy of the predicted changes in the free energy of ligand binding. Therefore, to improve the success rate of computational drug discovery, we present the open-source software package High Information Mapper (HiMap)─a new take on its predecessor, Lead Optimization Mapper (LOMAP). HiMap removes heuristics decisions from design selection and instead finds statistically optimal graphs over ligands clustered with machine learning. Beyond optimal design generation, we present theoretical insights for designing alchemical perturbation maps. Some of these results include that for n number of nodes, the precision of perturbation maps is stable at n·ln(n) edges. This result indicates that even an optimal graph can result in unexpectedly high errors if a plan includes too few alchemical transformations for the given number of ligands and edges. And, as a study compares more ligands, the performance of even optimal graphs will deteriorate with linear scaling of the edge count. In this sense, ensuring an A- or D-optimal topology is not enough to produce robust errors. We additionally find that optimal designs will converge more rapidly than radial and LOMAP designs. Moreover, we derive bounds for how clustering reduces cost for designs with a constant expected relative error per cluster, invariant of the size of the design. These results inform how to best design perturbation maps for computational drug discovery and have broader implications for experimental design.

Relative free energy calculations are fast becoming a critical part of early stage pharmaceutical design, making it important to know how to obtain the best performance with these calculations in applications that could span hundreds of calculations and molecules. In this work, we compared two different treatments of long-range electrostatics, Particle Mesh Ewald (PME) and Reaction Field (RF), in relative binding free energy calculations using a nonequilibrium switching protocol. We found simulations using RF achieve comparable results to those using PME but gain more efficiency when using CPU and similar performance using GPU. The results from this work encourage more use of RF in molecular simulations.

Background:

Force fields are used in a wide variety of contexts for classical molecular simulation, including studies on protein-ligand binding, membrane permeation, and thermophysical property prediction. The quality of these studies relies on the quality of the force fields used to represent the systems.

Methods:

: Focusing on small molecules of fewer than 50 heavy atoms, our aim in this work is to compare nine force fields: GAFF, GAFF2, MMFF94, MMFF94S, OPLS3e, SMIRNOFF99Frosst, and the Open Force Field Parsley, versions 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2. On a dataset comprising 22,675 molecular structures of 3,271 molecules, we analyzed force field-optimized geometries and conformer energies compared to reference quantum mechanical (QM) data.

Results:

: We show that while OPLS3e performs best, the latest Open Force Field Parsley release is approaching a comparable level of accuracy in reproducing QM geometries and energetics for this set of molecules. Meanwhile, the performance of established force fields such as MMFF94S and GAFF2 is generally somewhat worse. We also find that the series of recent Open Force Field versions provide significant increases in accuracy.

Conclusions:

: This study provides an extensive test of the performance of different molecular mechanics force fields on a diverse molecule set, and highlights two (OPLS3e and OpenFF 1.2) that perform better than the others tested on the present comparison. Our molecule set and results are available for other researchers to use in testing.

Background: Force fields are used in a wide variety of contexts for classical molecular simulation, including studies on protein-ligand binding, membrane permeation, and thermophysical property prediction. The quality of these studies relies on the quality of the force fields used to represent the systems. Methods: Focusing on small molecules of fewer than 50 heavy atoms, our aim in this work is to compare nine force fields: GAFF, GAFF2, MMFF94, MMFF94S, OPLS3e, SMIRNOFF99Frosst, and the Open Force Field Parsley, versions 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2. On a dataset comprising 22,675 molecular structures of 3,271 molecules, we analyzed force field-optimized geometries and conformer energies compared to reference quantum mechanical (QM) data. Results: We show that while OPLS3e performs best, the latest Open Force Field Parsley release is approaching a comparable level of accuracy in reproducing QM geometries and energetics for this set of molecules. Meanwhile, the performance of established force fields such as MMFF94S and GAFF2 is generally somewhat worse. We also find that the series of recent Open Force Field versions provide significant increases in accuracy. Conclusions: This study provides an extensive test of the performance of different molecular mechanics force fields on a diverse molecule set, and highlights two (OPLS3e and OpenFF 1.2) that perform better than the others tested on the present comparison. Our molecule set and results are available for other researchers to use in testing.

Nowadays, drug design projects benefit from highly accurate protein-ligand binding free energy predictions based on molecular dynamics simulations. While such calculations have been computationally expensive in the past, we now demonstrate that workflows built on open source software packages can efficiently leverage pre-exascale computing resources to screen hundreds of compounds in a matter of days. We report our results of free energy calculations on a large set of pharmaceutically relevant targets assembled to reflect industrial drug discovery projects.

In drug discovery, the in silico prediction of binding affinity is one of the major means to prioritize compounds for synthesis. Alchemical relative binding free energy (RBFE) calculations based on molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are nowadays a popular approach for the accurate affinity ranking of compounds. MD simulations rely on empirical force field parameters, which strongly influence the accuracy of the predicted affinities. Here, we evaluate the ability of six different small-molecule force fields to predict experimental protein-ligand binding affinities in RBFE calculations on a set of 598 ligands and 22 protein targets. The public force fields OpenFF Parsley and Sage, GAFF, and CGenFF show comparable accuracy, while OPLS3e is significantly more accurate. However, a consensus approach using Sage, GAFF, and CGenFF leads to accuracy comparable to OPLS3e. While Parsley and Sage are performing comparably based on aggregated statistics across the whole dataset, there are differences in terms of outliers. Analysis of the force field reveals that improved parameters lead to significant improvement in the accuracy of affinity predictions on subsets of the dataset involving those parameters. Lower accuracy can not only be attributed to the force field parameters but is also dependent on input preparation and sampling convergence of the calculations. Especially large perturbations and nonconverged simulations lead to less accurate predictions. The input structures, Gromacs force field files, as well as the analysis Python notebooks are available on GitHub.

Binding free energy calculations predict the potency of compounds to protein binding sites in a physically rigorous manner and see broad application in prioritizing the synthesis of novel drug candidates. Relative binding free energy (RBFE) calculations have emerged as an industry-standard approach to achieve highly accurate rank-order predictions of the potency of related compounds; however, this approach requires that the ligands share a common scaffold and a common binding mode, restricting the methods domain of applicability. This is a critical limitation since complex modifications to the ligands, especially core hopping, are very common in drug design. Absolute binding free energy (ABFE) calculations are an alternate method that can be used for ligands that are not congeneric. However, ABFE suffers from a known problem of long convergence times due to the need to sample additional degrees of freedom within each system, such as sampling rearrangements necessary to open and close the binding site. Here, we report on an alternative method for RBFE, called Separated Topologies (SepTop), which overcomes the issues in both of the aforementioned methods by enabling large scaffold changes between ligands with a convergence time comparable to traditional RBFE. Instead of only mutating atoms that vary between two ligands, this approach performs two absolute free energy calculations at the same time in opposite directions, one for each ligand. Defining the two ligands independently allows the comparison of the binding of diverse ligands without the artificial constraints of identical poses or a suitable atom-atom mapping. This approach also avoids the need to sample the unbound state of the protein, making it more efficient than absolute binding free energy calculations. Here, we introduce an implementation of SepTop. We developed a general and efficient protocol for running SepTop, and we demonstrated the method on four diverse, pharmaceutically relevant systems. We report the performance of the method, as well as our practical insights into the strengths, weaknesses, and challenges of applying this method in an industrial drug design setting. We find that the accuracy of the approach is sufficiently high to rank order ligands with an accuracy comparable to traditional RBFE calculations while maintaining the additional flexibility of SepTop.

Prioritizing molecules for synthesis is a key role of computational methods within medicinal chemistry. Multiple tools exist for ranking molecules, from the cheap and popular molecular docking methods to more computationally expensive molecular-dynamics (MD)-based methods. It is often questioned whether the accuracy of the more rigorous methods justifies the higher computational cost and associated calculation time. Here, we compared the performance on ranking the binding of small molecules for seven scoring functions from five docking programs, one end-point method (MM/GBSA), and two MD-based free energy methods (PMX, FEP+). We investigated 16 pharmaceutically relevant targets with a total of 423 known binders. The performance of docking methods for ligand ranking was strongly system dependent. We observed that MD-based methods predominantly outperformed docking algorithms and MM/GBSA calculations. Based on our results, we recommend the application of MD-based free energy methods for prioritization of molecules for synthesis in lead optimization, whenever feasible.

Alchemical free energy calculations are a useful tool for predicting free energy differences associated with the transfer of molecules from one environment to another. The hallmark of these methods is the use of "bridging" potential energy functions representing alchemical intermediate states that cannot exist as real chemical species. The data collected from these bridging alchemical thermodynamic states allows the efficient computation of transfer free energies (or differences in transfer free energies) with orders of magnitude less simulation time than simulating the transfer process directly. While these methods are highly flexible, care must be taken in avoiding common pitfalls to ensure that computed free energy differences can be robust and reproducible for the chosen force field, and that appropriate corrections are included to permit direct comparison with experimental data. In this paper, we review current best practices for several popular application domains of alchemical free energy calculations performed with equilibrium simulations, in particular relative and absolute small molecule binding free energy calculations to biomolecular targets.

Free energy calculations are rapidly becoming indispensable in structure-enabled drug discovery programs. As new methods, force fields, and implementations are developed, assessing their expected accuracy on real-world systems (benchmarking) becomes critical to provide users with an assessment of the accuracy expected when these methods are applied within their domain of applicability, and developers with a way to assess the expected impact of new methodologies. These assessments require construction of a benchmark-a set of well-prepared, high quality systems with corresponding experimental measurements designed to ensure the resulting calculations provide a realistic assessment of expected performance when these methods are deployed within their domains of applicability. To date, the community has not yet adopted a common standardized benchmark, and existing benchmark reports suffer from a myriad of issues, including poor data quality, limited statistical power, and statistically deficient analyses, all of which can conspire to produce benchmarks that are poorly predictive of real-world performance. Here, we address these issues by presenting guidelines for (1) curating experimental data to develop meaningful benchmark sets, (2) preparing benchmark inputs according to best practices to facilitate widespread adoption, and (3) analysis of the resulting predictions to enable statistically meaningful comparisons among methods and force fields. We highlight challenges and open questions that remain to be solved in these areas, as well as recommendations for the collection of new datasets that might optimally serve to measure progress as methods become systematically more reliable. Finally, we provide a curated, versioned, open, standardized benchmark set adherent to these standards (PLBenchmarks) and an open source toolkit for implementing standardized best practices assessments (arsenic) for the community to use as a standardized assessment tool. While our main focus is free energy methods based on molecular simulations, these guidelines should prove useful for assessment of the rapidly growing field of machine learning methods for affinity prediction as well.