Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 18, 2025

Parallel Interrogation of β-Arrestin2 Recruitment for Ligand Screening on a GPCR-Wide Scale using PRESTO-Tango Assay
Published on: March 10, 2020
Accurate Prediction of GPCR Ligand Binding Affinity with Free Energy Perturbation
Francesca Deflorian1, Laura Perez-Benito2, Eelke B Lenselink3
1Sosei Heptares, Steinmetz Building, Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge CB21 6DG United Kingdom.
Abstract:
The computational prediction of relative binding free energies is a crucial goal for drug discovery, and G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are arguably the most important drug target class. However, they present increased complexity to model compared to soluble globular proteins. Despite breakthroughs, experimental X-ray crystal and cryo-EM structures are challenging to attain, meaning computational models of the receptor and ligand binding mode are sometimes necessary. This leads to uncertainty in understanding ligand-protein binding induced changes such as, water positioning and displacement, side chain positioning, hydrogen bond networks, and the overall structure of the hydration shell around the ligand and protein. In other words, the very elements that define structure activity relationships (SARs) and are crucial for accurate binding free energy calculations are typically more uncertain for GPCRs. In this work we use free energy perturbation (FEP) to predict the relative binding free energies for ligands of two different GPCRs. We pinpoint the key aspects for success such as the important role of key water molecules, amino acid ionization states, and the benefit of equilibration with specific ligands. Initial calculations following typical FEP setup and execution protocols delivered no correlation with experiment, but we show how results are improved in a logical and systematic way. This approach gave, in the best cases, a coefficient of determination (R2) compared with experiment in the range of 0.6-0.9 and mean unsigned errors compared to experiment of 0.6-0.7 kcal/mol. We anticipate that our findings will be applicable to other difficult-to-model protein ligand data sets and be of wide interest for the community to continue improving FE binding energy predictions.
More Related Videos
10:29Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Activity Prediction, and Molecular Dynamics of Non-nucleotide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
Published on: May 9, 2025
08:21Monitoring GPCR-β-arrestin1/2 Interactions in Real Time Living Systems to Accelerate Drug Discovery
Published on: June 28, 2019
Related Concept Videos
The Equilibrium Binding Constant and Binding Strength
GPCRs Regulate Adenylyl Cylase Activity
GPCR Desensitization
Ligand Binding Sites
Protein-ligand interactions are quite specific; even though numerous potential ligands surround a cellular protein at any given time, only a particular ligand can bind to that protein. Moreover, a ligand binds only to a dedicated area on the surface of the protein, known as the...
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...
G Protein-coupled Receptors
GPCRs are also called heptahelical, 7TM, or serpentine receptors, and consist of seven (H1-H7) transmembrane alpha-helices that span the bilayer to form a cylindrical core. The transmembrane helices are connected by three extracellular loops and three...