PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 20, 2026Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling2 citationsOpen Access

Comparative Assessment of Free Energy Computational Methods for Revealing the Interactions Driving PARP1 Selective Inhibition

View Full Paper
AFAlejandro FeitoNDNatàlia DeMoya-ValenzuelaCPCristian Privat

Key Points

  • The study aims to evaluate various computational methods for predicting inhibitor selectivity between PARP1 and PARP2.
  • Compared three computational methods: MM/PBSA, ABFE, and US
  • Assessed selectivity for clinically relevant PARP inhibitors
  • Conducted structural contact analysis to understand ligand-protein interactions.
  • MM/PBSA provided qualitative insights but was sensitive to conformational choices
  • ABFE showed the strongest correlation with experimental data
  • Structural analysis identified key residues affecting ligand selectivity.

Abstract

Accurate prediction of inhibitor selectivity across protein paralogues remains a central challenge in computational drug discovery. Here, we perform a comparative assessment of three computational methods─Molecular Mechanics/Poisson–Boltzmann Surface Area (MM/PBSA), Absolute Binding Free Energy (ABFE) and Umbrella Sampling (US) calculations─in their ability to recapitulate PARP1 versus PARP2 selectivity for eight clinically relevant PARP enzyme inhibitors used in ovarian, breast, and prostate tumors, among others. We demonstrate how MM/PBSA calculations offer rapid and qualitative insights but show pronounced sensitivity to the chosen static conformational pose, being particularly challenging for ligands with subtle energetic differences between distinct protein paralogues. In contrast, both ABFE and US calculations using atomistic models with explicit solvent result in substantially improved agreement with experimental binding affinities. The ABFE method exhibits the strongest quantitative correlation with experimental binding free energy differences, remarkably reproducing selectivity trends even among nearly isoenergetic complexes. Notably, our structural contact analysis reveals how contact connectivity controls ligand selectivity, providing valuable mechanistic and molecular insight into the key residues that stabilize each inhibitor in both protein enzymes. Together, our multimethod computational study contributes to elucidating potential chemical modifications across the ligand chemical space to enhance potency and specificity, informing the future design and evaluation of selective inhibitors for precision oncology, including therapies targeting homologous recombination-deficient cancers.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Feito et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69e5c3ec03c2939914029b58https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.6c00083
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Benchmarking free energy computational methods for revealing the key interactions driving PARP1 selective inhibition.2026
  2. 2Cooperative molecular interaction networks govern PARP1 inhibitor selectivity and binding affinity2026 · 1 citations
  3. 3Structural Determinants of PARP1 Selectivity from Molecular Dynamics Analysis of PARP1 and PARP2 Complexes2026
  4. 4Interpretable QSAR and Complementary Docking for PARP1 Inhibitor Prioritization: Reliability Stratification and Near-Domain Screening2026
  5. 5Computational Evaluation of Novel PARP-1 Inhibitors for Breast Cancer: Docking, Molecular Dynamics, MM/GBSA, DFT and ADMET Calculations2026