» Articles » PMID: 20033914

Basic Ingredients of Free Energy Calculations: a Review

Overview
Journal J Comput Chem
Publisher Wiley
Specialties Biology
Chemistry
Date 2009 Dec 25
PMID 20033914
Citations 98
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Methods to compute free energy differences between different states of a molecular system are reviewed with the aim of identifying their basic ingredients and their utility when applied in practice to biomolecular systems. A free energy calculation is comprised of three basic components: (i) a suitable model or Hamiltonian, (ii) a sampling protocol with which one can generate a representative ensemble of molecular configurations, and (iii) an estimator of the free energy difference itself. Alternative sampling protocols can be distinguished according to whether one or more states are to be sampled. In cases where only a single state is considered, six alternative techniques could be distinguished: (i) changing the dynamics, (ii) deforming the energy surface, (iii) extending the dimensionality, (iv) perturbing the forces, (v) reducing the number of degrees of freedom, and (vi) multi-copy approaches. In cases where multiple states are to be sampled, the three primary techniques are staging, importance sampling, and adiabatic decoupling. Estimators of the free energy can be classified as global methods that either count the number of times a given state is sampled or use energy differences. Or, they can be classified as local methods that either make use of the force or are based on transition probabilities. Finally, this overview of the available techniques and how they can be best used in a practical context is aimed at helping the reader choose the most appropriate combination of approaches for the biomolecular system, Hamiltonian and free energy difference of interest.

Citing Articles

Konnektor: A Framework for Using Graph Theory to Plan Networks for Free Energy Calculations.

Ries B, Gowers R, Baumann H, Swenson D, Henry M, Eastwood J J Chem Inf Model. 2024; 64(22):8396-8403.

PMID: 39501568 PMC: 11812579. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.4c01710.


From Static to Dynamic Structures: Improving Binding Affinity Prediction with Graph-Based Deep Learning.

Min Y, Wei Y, Wang P, Wang X, Li H, Wu N Adv Sci (Weinh). 2024; 11(40):e2405404.

PMID: 39206846 PMC: 11516055. DOI: 10.1002/advs.202405404.


Assessing the Accuracy and Efficiency of Free Energy Differences Obtained from Flow-Based Probabilistic Generative Models.

Olehnovics E, Liu Y, Mehio N, Sheikh A, Shirts M, Salvalaglio M J Chem Theory Comput. 2024; 20(14):5913-5922.

PMID: 38984825 PMC: 11270817. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00520.


Convergence criteria for single-step free-energy calculations: the relation between the Π bias measure and the sample variance.

Wang M, Mei Y, Ryde U Chem Sci. 2024; 15(23):8786-8799.

PMID: 38873060 PMC: 11168088. DOI: 10.1039/d4sc00140k.


OGRe: Optimal Grid Refinement Protocol for Accurate Free Energy Surfaces and Its Application in Proton Hopping in Zeolites and 2D COF Stacking.

Borgmans S, Rogge S, Vanduyfhuys L, Van Speybroeck V J Chem Theory Comput. 2023; 19(24):9032-9048.

PMID: 38084847 PMC: 10753773. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01028.