ScholarWorksIndianapolis
  • Communities & Collections
  • Browse ScholarWorks
  • English
  • Català
  • Čeština
  • Deutsch
  • Español
  • Français
  • Gàidhlig
  • Italiano
  • Latviešu
  • Magyar
  • Nederlands
  • Polski
  • Português
  • Português do Brasil
  • Suomi
  • Svenska
  • Türkçe
  • Tiếng Việt
  • Қазақ
  • বাংলা
  • हिंदी
  • Ελληνικά
  • Yкраї́нська
  • Log In
    or
    New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. Browse by Subject

Browsing by Subject "Gibbs Sampler"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Results Per Page
Sort Options
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Generalizing the Discrete Gibbs Sampler-based λ-Dynamics Approach for Multisite Sampling of Many Ligands
    (American Chemical Society, 2021) Vilseck, Jonah Z.; Ding, Xinqiang; Hayes, Ryan L.; Brooks, Charles L., III.; Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, School of Medicine
    In this work, the discrete λ variant of the Gibbs sampler-based λ-dynamics (d-GSλD) method is developed to enable multiple functional group perturbations to be investigated at one or more sites of substitution off a common ligand core. The theoretical framework and special considerations for constructing discrete λ states for multisite d-GSλD are presented. The precision and accuracy of the d-GSλD method is evaluated with three test cases of increasing complexity. Specifically, methyl → methyl symmetric perturbations in water, 1,4-benzene hydration free energies and protein-ligand binding affinities for an example HIV-1 reverse transcriptase inhibitor series are computed with d-GSλD. Complementary MSλD calculations were also performed to compare with d-GSλD's performance. Excellent agreement between d-GSλD and MSλD is observed, with mean unsigned errors of 0.12 and 0.22 kcal/mol for computed hydration and binding free energy test cases, respectively. Good agreement with experiment is also observed, with errors of 0.5-0.7 kcal/mol. These findings support the applicability of the d-GSλD free energy method for a variety of molecular design problems, including structure-based drug design. Finally, a discussion of d-GSλD versus MSλD approaches is presented to compare and contrast features of both methods.
About IU Indianapolis ScholarWorks
  • Accessibility
  • Privacy Notice
  • Copyright © 2025 The Trustees of Indiana University