David L. Mobley

Find an error

Name: Mobley, David L.
Organization: University of California—Irvine , USA
Department: Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Chemistry
Title: (PhD)
Co-reporter:Pavel V. Klimovich
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design 2015 Volume 29( Issue 11) pp:1007-1014
Publication Date(Web):2015/11/01
DOI:10.1007/s10822-015-9873-0
Free energy calculations based on molecular dynamics (MD) simulations have seen a tremendous growth in the last decade. However, it is still difficult and tedious to set them up in an automated manner, as the majority of the present-day MD simulation packages lack that functionality. Relative free energy calculations are a particular challenge for several reasons, including the problem of finding a common substructure and mapping the transformation to be applied. Here we present a tool, alchemical-setup.py, that automatically generates all the input files needed to perform relative solvation and binding free energy calculations with the MD package GROMACS. When combined with Lead Optimization Mapper (LOMAP; Liu et al. in J Comput Aided Mol Des 27(9):755–770, 2013), recently developed in our group, alchemical-setup.py allows fully automated setup of relative free energy calculations in GROMACS. Taking a graph of the planned calculations and a mapping, both computed by LOMAP, our tool generates the topology and coordinate files needed to perform relative free energy calculations for a given set of molecules, and provides a set of simulation input parameters. The tool was validated by performing relative hydration free energy calculations for a handful of molecules from the SAMPL4 challenge (Mobley et al. in J Comput Aided Mol Des 28(4):135–150, 2014). Good agreement with previously published results and the straightforward way in which free energy calculations can be conducted make alchemical-setup.py a promising tool for automated setup of relative solvation and binding free energy calculations.
Co-reporter:Sreeja Parameswaran
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design 2014 Volume 28( Issue 8) pp:825-829
Publication Date(Web):2014/08/01
DOI:10.1007/s10822-014-9766-7
Hydration free energy calculations in explicit solvent have become an integral part of binding free energy calculations and a valuable test of force fields. Most of these simulations follow the conventional norm of keeping edge length of the periodic solvent box larger than twice the Lennard-Jones (LJ) cutoff distance, with the rationale that this should be sufficient to keep the interactions between copies of the solute to a minimum. However, for charged solutes, hydration free energies can exhibit substantial box size-dependence even at typical box sizes. Here, we examine whether similar size-dependence affects hydration of neutral molecules. Thus, we focused on two strongly polar molecules with large dipole moments, where any size-dependence should be most pronounced, and determined how their hydration free energies vary as a function of simulation box size. In addition to testing a variety of simulation box sizes, we also tested two LJ cut-off distances, 0.65 and 1.0 nm. We show from these simulations that the calculated hydration free energy is independent of the box-size as well as the LJ cut-off distance, suggesting that typical hydration free energy calculations of neutral compounds indeed need not be particularly concerned with finite-size effects as long as standard good practices are followed.
Co-reporter:Christopher J. Fennell, Karisa L. Wymer, and David L. Mobley
The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2014 Volume 118(Issue 24) pp:6438-6446
Publication Date(Web):April 5, 2014
DOI:10.1021/jp411529h
We present a simple optimization strategy for incorporating experimental dielectric response information on neat liquids in classical molecular models of alcohol. Using this strategy, we determine simple and transferable hydroxyl modulation rules that, when applied to an existing molecular parameter set, result in a newly dielectric corrected (DC) parameter set. We applied these rules to the general Amber force field (GAFF) to form an initial set of GAFF-DC parameters, and we found this to lead to significant improvement in the calculated dielectric constant and hydration free energy values for a wide variety of small molecule alcohol models. Tests of the GAFF-DC parameters in the SAMPL4 blind prediction event for hydration show these changes improve agreement with experiment. Surprisingly, these simple modifications also outperform detailed quantum mechanical electric field calculations using a self-consistent reaction field environment coupling term. This work provides a potential benchmark for future developments in methods for representing condensed-phase environments in electronic structure calculations.
Co-reporter:Hari S. Muddana;Andrew T. Fenley
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design 2014 Volume 28( Issue 4) pp:305-317
Publication Date(Web):2014 April
DOI:10.1007/s10822-014-9735-1
Prospective validation of methods for computing binding affinities can help assess their predictive power and thus set reasonable expectations for their performance in drug design applications. Supramolecular host–guest systems are excellent model systems for testing such affinity prediction methods, because their small size and limited conformational flexibility, relative to proteins, allows higher throughput and better numerical convergence. The SAMPL4 prediction challenge therefore included a series of host–guest systems, based on two hosts, cucurbit[7]uril and octa-acid. Binding affinities in aqueous solution were measured experimentally for a total of 23 guest molecules. Participants submitted 35 sets of computational predictions for these host–guest systems, based on methods ranging from simple docking, to extensive free energy simulations, to quantum mechanical calculations. Over half of the predictions provided better correlations with experiment than two simple null models, but most methods underperformed the null models in terms of root mean squared error and linear regression slope. Interestingly, the overall performance across all SAMPL4 submissions was similar to that for the prior SAMPL3 host–guest challenge, although the experimentalists took steps to simplify the current challenge. While some methods performed fairly consistently across both hosts, no single approach emerged as consistent top performer, and the nonsystematic nature of the various submissions made it impossible to draw definitive conclusions regarding the best choices of energy models or sampling algorithms. Salt effects emerged as an issue in the calculation of absolute binding affinities of cucurbit[7]uril-guest systems, but were not expected to affect the relative affinities significantly. Useful directions for future rounds of the challenge might involve encouraging participants to carry out some calculations that replicate each others’ studies, and to systematically explore parameter options.
Co-reporter:Shuai Liu;Yujie Wu;Teng Lin;Robert Abel
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design 2013 Volume 27( Issue 9) pp:755-770
Publication Date(Web):2013 September
DOI:10.1007/s10822-013-9678-y
Alchemical free energy calculations hold increasing promise as an aid to drug discovery efforts. However, applications of these techniques in discovery projects have been relatively few, partly because of the difficulty of planning and setting up calculations. Here, we introduce lead optimization mapper, LOMAP, an automated algorithm to plan efficient relative free energy calculations between potential ligands within a substantial library of perhaps hundreds of compounds. In this approach, ligands are first grouped by structural similarity primarily based on the size of a (loosely defined) maximal common substructure, and then calculations are planned within and between sets of structurally related compounds. An emphasis is placed on ensuring that relative free energies can be obtained between any pair of compounds without combining the results of too many different relative free energy calculations (to avoid accumulation of error) and by providing some redundancy to allow for the possibility of error and consistency checking and provide some insight into when results can be expected to be unreliable. The algorithm is discussed in detail and a Python implementation, based on both Schrödinger’s and OpenEye’s APIs, has been made available freely under the BSD license.
Urea,N-ethyl-N'-[4-(5-methyl-1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-6-(3-pyridinyl)-1H-benzimidazol-2-yl]-
3-METHYL-6-NITRO-2H-CHROMEN-2-ONE
cucurbit(7)uril
GLYCYL-D-PROLINE
3,5-DICHLORO-2,6-DIMETHOXYPHENOL
(S)-2-ISOPROPYLAMINO-3-METHYL-1-BUTANOL
(S)-1-N-CBZ-2-METHYL-PIPERAZINE
2-Thiophenecarboxaldehyde, oxime, (E)-
Nitric acid, hexylester
4,5,6,7-Tetrahydro-1H-indole