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.

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.

We introduce the Open Force Field (OpenFF) 2.0.0 small molecule force field for drug-like molecules, code-named Sage, which builds upon our previous iteration, Parsley. OpenFF force fields are based on direct chemical perception, which generalizes easily to highly diverse sets of chemistries based on substructure queries. Like the previous OpenFF iterations, the Sage generation of OpenFF force fields was validated in protein-ligand simulations to be compatible with AMBER biopolymer force fields. In this work, we detail the methodology used to develop this force field, as well as the innovations and improvements introduced since the release of Parsley 1.0.0. One particularly significant feature of Sage is a set of improved Lennard-Jones (LJ) parameters retrained against condensed phase mixture data, the first refit of LJ parameters in the OpenFF small molecule force field line. Sage also includes valence parameters refit to a larger database of quantum chemical calculations than previous versions, as well as improvements in how this fitting is performed. Force field benchmarks show improvements in general metrics of performance against quantum chemistry reference data such as root-mean-square deviations (RMSD) of optimized conformer geometries, torsion fingerprint deviations (TFD), and improved relative conformer energetics (ΔΔE). We present a variety of benchmarks for these metrics against our previous force fields as well as in some cases other small molecule force fields. Sage also demonstrates improved performance in estimating physical properties, including comparison against experimental data from various thermodynamic databases for small molecule properties such as ΔH_mix, ρ(x), ΔG_solv, and ΔG_trans. Additionally, we benchmarked against protein-ligand binding free energies (ΔG_bind), where Sage yields results statistically similar to previous force fields. All the data is made publicly available along with complete details on how to reproduce the training results at https://github.com/openforcefield/openff-sage.

Force fields form the basis for classical molecular simulations, and their accuracy is crucial for the quality of, for instance, protein-ligand binding simulations in drug discovery. The huge diversity of small-molecule chemistry makes it a challenge to build and parameterize a suitable force field. The Open Force Field Initiative is a combined industry and academic consortium developing a state-of-the-art small-molecule force field. In this report, industry members of the consortium worked together to objectively evaluate the performance of the force fields (referred to here as OpenFF) produced by the initiative on a combined public and proprietary dataset of 19,653 relevant molecules selected from their internal research and compound collections. This evaluation was important because it was completely blind; at most partners, none of the molecules or data were used in force field development or testing prior to this work. We compare the Open Force Field "Sage" version 2.0.0 and "Parsley" version 1.3.0 with GAFF-2.11-AM1BCC, OPLS4, and SMIRNOFF99Frosst. We analyzed force-field-optimized geometries and conformer energies compared to reference quantum mechanical data. We show that OPLS4 performs best, and the latest Open Force Field release shows a clear improvement compared to its predecessors. The performance of established force fields such as GAFF-2.11 was generally worse. While OpenFF researchers were involved in building the benchmarking infrastructure used in this work, benchmarking was done entirely in-house within industrial organizations and the resulting assessment is reported here. This work assesses the force field performance using separate benchmarking steps, external datasets, and involving external research groups. This effort may also be unique in terms of the number of different industrial partners involved, with 10 different companies participating in the benchmark efforts.

We present a methodology for defining and optimizing a general force field for classical molecular simulations, and we describe its use to derive the Open Force Field 1.0.0 small-molecule force field, codenamed Parsley. Rather than using traditional atom typing, our approach is built on the SMIRKS-native Open Force Field (SMIRNOFF) parameter assignment formalism, which handles increases in the diversity and specificity of the force field definition without needlessly increasing the complexity of the specification. Parameters are optimized with the ForceBalance tool, based on reference quantum chemical data that include torsion potential energy profiles, optimized gas-phase structures, and vibrational frequencies. These quantum reference data are computed and are maintained with QCArchive, an open-source and freely available distributed computing and database software ecosystem. In this initial application of the method, we present essentially a full optimization of all valence parameters and report tests of the resulting force field against compounds and data types outside the training set. These tests show improvements in optimized geometries and conformational energetics and demonstrate that Parsley's accuracy for liquid properties is similar to that of other general force fields, as is accuracy on binding free energies. We find that this initial Parsley force field affords accuracy similar to that of other general force fields when used to calculate relative binding free energies spanning 199 protein-ligand systems. Additionally, the resulting infrastructure allows us to rapidly optimize an entirely new force field with minimal human intervention.