Evaluating the Functional Importance of Conformer‐Dependent Atomic Partial Charge Assignment

Physics-based methods such as protein-ligand binding free energy calculations have been increasingly adopted in early-stage drug discovery to prioritize promising compounds for synthesis. However, the accuracy of these methods is highly dependent on the details of the calculation and choices made while preparing the ligands and protein ahead of running calculations. During ligand preparation, researchers typically assign partial atomic charges to each ligand atom using a specific ligand conformation for charge assignment, often the input conformer. While it is a well-known problem that partial charge assignment is dependent on conformation, little investigation has explored the downstream effects of varied partial charge assignment on free energy estimates. Preliminary benchmarks from the Open Free Energy Project show that generating partial charges from different input conformers leads to variation of up to <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:semantics><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo> <mml:mn>5</mml:mn> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn></mml:mrow> <mml:annotation>$$ \pm 5.3 $$</mml:annotation></mml:semantics> </mml:math> kcal/mol in calculated relative binding free energies due to variation in partial charges alone. In this study, we more systematically explore this issue, investigating it in smaller systems using absolute hydration free energy calculations to reduce the degrees of freedom and sources of statistical error as compared to larger protein-ligand systems. We investigate how differences in partial charge generation (such as those caused by input conformer choice, partial charge engine, and hardware) may lead to differences in calculated absolute hydration free energy (AHFE) values. We demonstrate that supplying different input conformers to a partial charge engine can result in atomic partial charge discrepancies of up to 0.681 e, resulting in differences in calculated AHFE of <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:semantics><mml:mrow><mml:mn>6</mml:mn> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> <mml:mn>9</mml:mn> <mml:mo>±</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0</mml:mn> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow> <mml:annotation>$$ 6.9\pm 0.1 $$</mml:annotation></mml:semantics> </mml:math> kcal/mol. We find that even relatively small variations in partial charge assignment can result in notable differences in calculated AHFE. Thus, care should be taken when assigning partial charges to ensure reproducibility and accuracy of any resulting free energy calculations. We expect that these effects will be magnified in pharmaceutically relevant binding free energy calculations with additional degrees of freedom, more highly directional interactions than in water, and potentially more statistical error.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Computational Chemistry
Published
2025-05-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.70112
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Protein Structure and Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.03

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating the Functional Importance of Conformer‐Dependent Atomic Partial Charge Assignment

David L. Mobley, Irfan Alibay, Meghan Osato, Hannah M. Baumann et al.
5 citations
Journal of Computational Chemistry
Protein Structure and Dynamics
4.03
article

Evaluating the Functional Importance of Conformer‐Dependent Atomic Partial Charge Assignment

David L. Mobley, Irfan Alibay, Meghan Osato, Hannah M. Baumann, Jennifer Huang
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Physics-based methods such as protein-ligand binding free energy calculations have been increasingly adopted in early-stage drug discovery to prioritize promising compounds for synthesis. However, the accuracy of these methods is highly dependent on the details of the calculation and choices made while preparing the ligands and protein ahead of running calculations. During ligand preparation, researchers typically assign partial atomic charges to each ligand atom using a specific ligand conformation for charge assignment, often the input conformer. While it is a well-known problem that partial charge assignment is dependent on conformation, little investigation has explored the downstream effects of varied partial charge assignment on free energy estimates. Preliminary benchmarks from the Open Free Energy Project show that generating partial charges from different input conformers leads to variation of up to <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:semantics><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo> <mml:mn>5</mml:mn> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn></mml:mrow> <mml:annotation>$$ \pm 5.3 $$</mml:annotation></mml:semantics> </mml:math> kcal/mol in calculated relative binding free energies due to variation in partial charges alone. In this study, we more systematically explore this issue, investigating it in smaller systems using absolute hydration free energy calculations to reduce the degrees of freedom and sources of statistical error as compared to larger protein-ligand systems. We investigate how differences in partial charge generation (such as those caused by input conformer choice, partial charge engine, and hardware) may lead to differences in calculated absolute hydration free energy (AHFE) values. We demonstrate that supplying different input conformers to a partial charge engine can result in atomic partial charge discrepancies of up to 0.681 e, resulting in differences in calculated AHFE of <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:semantics><mml:mrow><mml:mn>6</mml:mn> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> <mml:mn>9</mml:mn> <mml:mo>±</mml:mo> <mml:mn>0</mml:mn> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow> <mml:annotation>$$ 6.9\pm 0.1 $$</mml:annotation></mml:semantics> </mml:math> kcal/mol. We find that even relatively small variations in partial charge assignment can result in notable differences in calculated AHFE. Thus, care should be taken when assigning partial charges to ensure reproducibility and accuracy of any resulting free energy calculations. We expect that these effects will be magnified in pharmaceutically relevant binding free energy calculations with additional degrees of freedom, more highly directional interactions than in water, and potentially more statistical error.

Journal of Computational ChemistryVol. 46(13)
University of California, Irvine (US), Open Geospatial Consortium (US), Open Molecular Software Foundation
National Institutes of Health
Affordable and clean energy
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Protein Structure and Dynamics
4.03
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.