We explore the ability of four quantum mechanical (QM)/molecular mechanical (MM) models to accurately identify the native pose of six HIV-1 protease inhibitors and compare them with the AMBER force field and ChemScore and GoldScore scoring functions. Three QM/MM scoring functions treated the ligand at the HF/6-31G*, AM1d, and PM3 levels; the fourth QM/MM function modeled the ligand and active site at the PM3-D level. For the discrimination of native from non-native poses, solvent-corrected HF/6-31G*:AMBER and AMBER functions exhibited the best overall performance. While the electrostatic component of the MM and QM/MM functions appears important for discriminating the native pose of the ligand, the polarization contribution in the QM/MM functions was relatively insensitive to a ligand's binding mode and, for one ligand, actually hindered discrimination. The inclusion of a desolvation penalty, here using a generalized Born solvent model, improved discrimination for the MM and QM/MM methods. There appeared to be no advantage to binding mode prediction by incorporating active site polarization at the PM3-D level. Finally, we found that choice of the protonation state of the aspartyl dyad in the HIV-1 protease active site influenced the ability of scoring methods to determine the native binding pose.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fong et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: