Search

We describe the theory of the so-called common-core/serial-atom-insertion (CC/SAI) approach to compute alchemical free energy differences and its practical implementation in a Python package called Transformato. CC/SAI is not tied to a specific biomolecular simulation program and does not rely on special purpose code for alchemical transformations. To calculate the alchemical free energy difference between several small molecules, the physical end-states are mutated into a suitable common core. Since this only requires turning off interactions, the setup of intermediate states is straightforward to automate. Transformato currently supports CHARMM and OpenMM as back ends to carry out the necessary molecular dynamics simulations, as well as post-processing calculations. We validate the method by computing a series of relative solvation free energy differences., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Computational Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

We demonstrate that Jarzynski's equation can be used to reliably compute free energy differences between low and high level representations of systems. The need for such a calculation arises when employing the so-called "indirect" approach to free energy simulations with mixed quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) Hamiltonians; a popular technique for circumventing extensive simulations involving quantum chemical computations. We have applied this methodology to several small and medium sized organic molecules, both in the gas phase and explicit solvent. Test cases include several systems for which the standard approach; that is, free energy perturbation between low and high level description, fails to converge. Finally, we identify three major areas in which the difference between low and high level representations make the calculation of ΔAlow→high difficult: bond stretching and angle bending, different preferred conformations, and the response of the MM region to the charge distribution of the QM region. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The performances of Bennett's acceptance ratio method and thermodynamic integration (TI) for the calculation of free energy differences in protein simulations are compared. For the latter, the standard trapezoidal rule, Simpson's rule, and Clenshaw-Curtis integration are used as numerical integration methods. We evaluate the influence of the number and definition of intermediate states on the precision, accuracy, and efficiency of the free energy calculations. Our results show that non-equidistantly spaced intermediate states are in some cases beneficial for the TI methods. Using several combinations of softness parameters and the λ power dependence, it is shown that these benefits are strongly dependent on the shape of the integrand. Although TI is more user-friendly due to its simplicity, it was found that Bennett's acceptance ratio method is the more efficient method. It is also the least dependent on the choice of the intermediate states, making it more robust than TI., (Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

In the past analyses of the so-called van der Waals end point problem focused on thermodynamic integration. Here we investigate which of the recommendations, such as the need for soft-core potentials, are still valid when Bennett's acceptance ratio method is used. We show that in combination with Bennett's acceptance ratio method intermediate states characterized by the coupling parameter λ can be replaced by intermediate states in which Lennard-Jones interactions are turned on or off on an "atom by atom" basis. By doing so, there is no necessity to use soft-core potentials. In fact, one can compute free energy differences without dedicated code, making it possible to use any molecular dynamics program to compute alchemical free energy differences. Such an approach, which we illustrate by several examples, makes it possible to exploit the tremendous computational power of the graphics processing unit., (Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

We investigate the relative efficiency of thermodynamic integration, three variants of the exponential formula, also referred to as thermodynamic perturbation, and Bennett's acceptance ratio method to compute relative and absolute solvation free energy differences. Our primary goal is the development of efficient protocols that are robust in practice. We focus on minimizing the number of unphysical intermediate states (λ-states) required for the computation of accurate and precise free energy differences. Several indicators are presented which help decide when additional λ-states are necessary. In all tests Bennett's acceptance ratio method required the least number of λ-states, closely followed by the "double-wide" variant of the exponential formula. Use of the exponential formula in only strict "forward" or "backward" mode was not found to be competitive. Similarly, the performance of thermodynamic integration in terms of efficiency was rather poor. We show that this is caused by the use of the trapezoidal rule as method of numerical quadrature. A systematic study focusing on the optimization of thermodynamic integration is presented in a companion paper., (Copyright © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

We attempt to optimize the efficiency of thermodynamic integration, as defined by the minimal number of unphysical intermediate states required for the computation of accurate and precise free energy differences. The suitability of various numerical quadrature methods is tested. In particular, we compare the trapezoidal rule, Simpson's rule, Gauss-Legendre, Gauss-Kronrod-Patterson, and Clenshaw-Curtis integration, as well as integration based on a cubic spline approximation of the integrand. We find that Simpson's rule and spline integration are already significantly more efficient that the trapezoidal rule, i.e., correct free energy differences can be obtained using fewer λ-states. We demonstrate that Simpson's rule can be used advantageously with nonequidistant values of the abscissa, which increases the flexibility of the method. Efficiency is enhanced even further if higher order methods, such as Gauss-Legendre, Gauss-Kronrod-Patterson, or Clenshaw-Curtis integration, are used; no more than seven λ-states, which in the case of Clenshaw-Curtis integration include the physical end states, were required for accurate results in all test problems studied. Thus, the performance of thermodynamic integration can equal that of Bennett's acceptance ratio method. We also show, however, that the high efficiency found here relies on the particular functional form of the soft-core potential used; overall, thermodynamic integration is more susceptible to the details of the hybrid Hamiltonian used than Bennett's acceptance ratio method. Therefore, we recommend Bennett's acceptance ratio method as the most robust method to compute alchemical free energy differences; nevertheless, scenarios when thermodynamic integration may be preferable are discussed., (Copyright © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The exact computation of free energy differences requires adequate sampling of all relevant low energy conformations. Especially in systems with rugged energy surfaces, adequate sampling can only be achieved by biasing the exploration process, thus yielding non-Boltzmann probability distributions. To obtain correct free energy differences from such simulations, it is necessary to account for the effects of the bias in the postproduction analysis. We demonstrate that this can be accomplished quite simply with a slight modification of Bennett's Acceptance Ratio method, referring to this technique as Non-Boltzmann Bennett. We illustrate the method by several examples and show how a creative choice of the biased state(s) used during sampling can also improve the efficiency of free energy simulations., (Copyright © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

We illustrate the application of Bennett's acceptance ratio method (BAR) to problems in which standard methods to compute free energy differences (thermodynamic integration, exponential formula) are not practical. Our starting point is the observation that BAR can often compute the free energy difference between two states without the need for intermediate states usually employed (and necessary) in alchemical free energy simulations. This is demonstrated first for the free energy difference between ethane and methanol in aqueous solution. We then show how BAR can be used to compute directly rather unusual free energy differences, such as the free energy difference resulting from changing the treatment of electrostatic interactions, from switching the force field, or from using an implicit solvent model. Calculations of this kind should prove useful for force field development and the validation of implicit solvent methods., (2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)