Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 15, 2026

Heterogeneous Removal of Water-Soluble Ruthenium Olefin Metathesis Catalyst from Aqueous Media Via Host-Guest Interaction
Published on: August 23, 2018
Evaluation of Generalized Born Models for Large Scale Affinity Prediction of Cyclodextrin Host-Guest Complexes
Haiyang Zhang1, Chunhua Yin1, Hai Yan1
1Department of Biological Science and Engineering, School of Chemistry and Biological Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing , 100083 Beijing, China.
Abstract:
Binding affinity prediction with implicit solvent models remains a challenge in virtual screening for drug discovery. In order to assess the predictive power of implicit solvent models in docking techniques with Amber scoring, three generalized Born models (GBHCT, GBOBCI, and GBOBCII) available in Dock 6.7 were utilized, for determining the binding affinity of a large set of β-cyclodextrin complexes with 75 neutral guest molecules. The results were compared to potential of mean force (PMF) free energy calculations with four GB models (GBStill, GBHCT, GBOBCI, and GBOBCII) and to experimental data. Docking results yield similar accuracy to the computationally demanding PMF method with umbrella sampling. Neither docking nor PMF calculations reproduce the experimental binding affinities, however, as indicated by a small Spearman rank order coefficient (∼0.5). The binding energies obtained from GB models were decomposed further into individual contributions of the binding partners and solvent environments and compared to explicit solvent simulations for five complexes allowing for rationalizing the difference between explicit and implicit solvent models. An important observation is that the explicit solvent screens the interaction between host and guest much stronger than GB models. In contrast, the screening in GB models is too strong in solutes, leading to overestimation of short-range interactions and too strong binding. It is difficult to envision a way of overcoming these two opposite effects.
More Related Videos
05:08Application of I TASSER, trRosetta, UCSF Chimera, HADDOCK server, and HEX loria for De Novo and In Silico Design of Proteins
Published on: July 8, 2025
06:50Author Spotlight: A Computational Approach to Decipher Amino Acid Preferences in Multispecific Protein-Protein Interactions
Published on: January 26, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Noncovalent Attractions in Biomolecules
Four types of noncovalent interactions are hydrogen bonds, van der Waals forces, ionic bonds, and hydrophobic interactions.
Hydrogen bonding results from the electrostatic attraction of a hydrogen atom covalently bonded to a strong-electronegative atom like oxygen,...
Noncovalent Attractions in Biomolecules
Protein-protein Interfaces
Conserved Binding Sites
Binding sites are often located in large pockets, and if their location on a protein’s surface is unknown, it can be predicted using various approaches. The energetic method computationally...