The SAMPL series of challenges aim to focus the community on specific modeling challenges, while testing and hopefully driving progress of computational methods to help guide pharmaceutical drug discovery. In this study, we report on the results of the SAMPL8 host–guest blind challenge for predicting absolute binding affinities. SAMPL8 focused on two host–guest datasets, one involving the cucurbituril CB8 (with a series of common drugs of abuse) and another involving two different Gibb deep-cavity cavitands. The latter dataset involved a previously featured deep cavity cavitand (TEMOA) as well as a new variant (TEETOA), both binding to a series of relatively rigid fragment-like guests. Challenge participants employed a reasonably wide variety of methods, though many of these were based on molecular simulations, and predictive accuracy was mixed. As in some previous SAMPL iterations (SAMPL6 and SAMPL7), we found that one approach to achieve greater accuracy was to apply empirical corrections to the binding free energy predictions, taking advantage of prior data on binding to these hosts. Another approach which performed well was a hybrid MD-based approach with reweighting to a force matched QM potential. In the cavitand challenge, an alchemical method using the AMOEBA-polarizable force field achieved the best success with RMSE less than 1 kcal/mol, while another alchemical approach (ATM/GAFF2-AM1BCC/TIP3P/HREM) had RMSE less than 1.75 kcal/mol. The work discussed here also highlights several important lessons; for example, retrospective studies of reference calculations demonstrate the sensitivity of predicted binding free energies to ethyl group sampling and/or guest starting pose, providing guidance to help improve future studies on these systems.

Temperature artifacts in protein structures impact the utility of structural information in computation by misleading validation and application of computational methods in discovering bioactive molecules.

Water molecules play a key role in many biomolecular systems, particularly when bound at protein-ligand interfaces. However, molecular simulation studies on such systems are hampered by the relatively long time scales over which water exchange between a protein and solvent takes place. Grand canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) is a simulation technique that avoids this issue by attempting the insertion and deletion of water molecules within a given structure. The approach is constrained by low acceptance probabilities for insertions in congested systems, however. To address this issue, here, we combine GCMC with nonequilibium candidate Monte Carlo (NCMC) to yield a method that we refer to as grand canonical nonequilibrium candidate Monte Carlo (GCNCMC), in which the water insertions and deletions are carried out in a gradual, nonequilibrium fashion. We validate this new approach by comparing GCNCMC and GCMC simulations of bulk water and three protein binding sites. We find that not only is the efficiency of the water sampling improved by GCNCMC but that it also results in increased sampling of ligand conformations in a protein binding site, revealing new water-mediated ligand-binding geometries that are not observed using alternative enhanced sampling techniques.

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.