D3R Grand Challenge 4: ligand similarity and MM-GBSA-based pose prediction and affinity ranking for BACE-1 inhibitors

The Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) Grand Challenges present an opportunity to assess, in the context of a blind predictive challenge, the accuracy and the limits of tools and methodologies designed to help guide pharmaceutical drug discovery projects. Here, we report the results of our participation in the D3R Grand Challenge 4 (GC4), which focused on predicting the binding poses and affinity ranking for compounds targeting the $$\beta$$-amyloid precursor protein (BACE-1). Our ligand similarity-based protocol using HYBRID (OpenEye Scientific Software) successfully identified poses close to the native binding mode for most of the ligands with less than 2 Å RMSD accuracy. Furthermore, we compared the performance of our HYBRID-based approach to that of AutoDock Vina and DOCK 6 and found that using a reference ligand to guide the docking process is a better strategy for pose prediction and helped HYBRID to perform better here. We also conducted end-point free energy estimates on molecules dynamics based ensembles of protein-ligand complexes using molecular mechanics combined with generalized Born surface area method (MM-GBSA). We found that the binding affinity ranking based on MM-GBSA scores have poor correlation with the experimental values. Finally, the main lessons from our participation in D3R GC4 are: (i) the generation of the macrocyclic conformers is a key step for successful pose prediction, (ii) the protonation states of the BACE-1 binding site should be treated carefully, (iii) the MM-GBSA method could not discriminate well between different predicted binding poses, and (iv) the MM-GBSA method does not perform well at predicting protein–ligand binding affinities here.     

Workflows and performances in the ranking prediction of 2016 D3R Grand Challenge 2: lessons learned from a collaborative effort

The 2016 D3R Grand Challenge 2 includes both pose and affinity or ranking predictions. This article is focused exclusively on affinity predictions submitted to the D3R challenge from a collaborative effort of the modeling and informatics group. Our submissions include ranking of 102 ligands covering 4 different chemotypes against the FXR ligand binding domain structure, and the relative binding affinity predictions of the two designated free energy subsets of 15 and 18 compounds. Using all the complex structures prepared in the same way allowed us to cover many types of workflows and compare their performances effectively. We evaluated typical workflows used in our daily structure-based design modeling support, which include docking scores, force field-based scores, QM/MM, MMGBSA, MD-MMGBSA, and MacroModel interaction energy estimations. The best performing methods for the two free energy subsets are discussed. Our results suggest that affinity ranking still remains very challenging; that the knowledge of more structural information does not necessarily yield more accurate predictions; and that visual inspection and human intervention are considerably important for ranking. Knowledge of the mode of action and protein flexibility along with visualization tools that depict polar and hydrophobic maps are very useful for visual inspection. QM/MM-based workflows were found to be powerful in affinity ranking and are encouraged to be applied more often. The standardized input and output enable systematic analysis and support methodology development and improvement for high level blinded predictions.     

Ranking docking poses by graph matching of protein–ligand interactions: lessons learned from the D3R Grand Challenge 2

A novel docking challenge has been set by the Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) in order to predict the pose and affinity ranking of a set of Farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonists, prior to the public release of their bound X-ray structures and potencies. In a first phase, 36 agonists were docked to 26 Protein Data Bank (PDB) structures of the FXR receptor, and next rescored using the in-house developed GRIM method. GRIM aligns protein–ligand interaction patterns of docked poses to those of available PDB templates for the target protein, and rescore poses by a graph matching method. In agreement with results obtained during the previous 2015 docking challenge, we clearly show that GRIM rescoring improves the overall quality of top-ranked poses by prioritizing interaction patterns already visited in the PDB. Importantly, this challenge enables us to refine the applicability domain of the method by better defining the conditions of its success. We notably show that rescoring apolar ligands in hydrophobic pockets leads to frequent GRIM failures. In the second phase, 102 FXR agonists were ranked by decreasing affinity according to the Gibbs free energy of the corresponding GRIM-selected poses, computed by the HYDE scoring function. Interestingly, this fast and simple rescoring scheme provided the third most accurate ranking method among 57 contributions. Although the obtained ranking is still unsuitable for hit to lead optimization, the GRIM–HYDE scoring scheme is accurate and fast enough to post-process virtual screening data.     

Impact of domain knowledge on blinded predictions of binding energies by alchemical free energy calculations

The Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) consortium organises blinded challenges to address the latest advances in computational methods for ligand pose prediction, affinity ranking, and free energy calculations. Within the context of the second D3R Grand Challenge several blinded binding free energies predictions were made for two congeneric series of Farsenoid X Receptor (FXR) inhibitors with a semi-automated alchemical free energy calculation workflow featuring FESetup and SOMD software tools. Reasonable performance was observed in retrospective analyses of literature datasets. Nevertheless, blinded predictions on the full D3R datasets were poor due to difficulties encountered with the ranking of compounds that vary in their net-charge. Performance increased for predictions that were restricted to subsets of compounds carrying the same net-charge. Disclosure of X-ray crystallography derived binding modes maintained or improved the correlation with experiment in a subsequent rounds of predictions. The best performing protocols on D3R set1 and set2 were comparable or superior to predictions made on the basis of analysis of literature structure activity relationships (SAR)s only, and comparable or slightly inferior, to the best submissions from other groups.     

Using physics-based pose predictions and free energy perturbation calculations to predict binding poses and relative binding affinities for FXR ligands in the D3R Grand Challenge 2

Computer-aided drug design has become an integral part of drug discovery and development in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, and is nowadays extensively used in the lead identification and lead optimization phases. The drug design data resource (D3R) organizes challenges against blinded experimental data to prospectively test computational methodologies as an opportunity for improved methods and algorithms to emerge. We participated in Grand Challenge 2 to predict the crystallographic poses of 36 Farnesoid X Receptor (FXR)-bound ligands and the relative binding affinities for two designated subsets of 18 and 15 FXR-bound ligands. Here, we present our methodology for pose and affinity predictions and its evaluation after the release of the experimental data. For predicting the crystallographic poses, we used docking and physics-based pose prediction methods guided by the binding poses of native ligands. For FXR ligands with known chemotypes in the PDB, we accurately predicted their binding modes, while for those with unknown chemotypes the predictions were more challenging. Our group ranked #1st (based on the median RMSD) out of 46 groups, which submitted complete entries for the binding pose prediction challenge. For the relative binding affinity prediction challenge, we performed free energy perturbation (FEP) calculations coupled with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. FEP/MD calculations displayed a high success rate in identifying compounds with better or worse binding affinity than the reference (parent) compound. Our studies suggest that when ligands with chemical precedent are available in the literature, binding pose predictions using docking and physics-based methods are reliable; however, predictions are challenging for ligands with completely unknown chemotypes. We also show that FEP/MD calculations hold predictive value and can nowadays be used in a high throughput mode in a lead optimization project provided that crystal structures of sufficiently high quality are available.     

A D3R prospective evaluation of machine learning for protein-ligand scoring

We assess the performance of several machine learning-based scoring methods at protein-ligand pose prediction, virtual screening, and binding affinity prediction. The methods and the manner in which they were trained make them sufficiently diverse to evaluate the utility of various strategies for training set curation and binding pose generation, but they share a novel approach to classification in the context of protein-ligand scoring. Rather than explicitly using structural data such as affinity values or information extracted from crystal binding poses for training, we instead exploit the abundance of data available from high-throughput screening to approach the problem as one of discriminating binders from non-binders. We evaluate the performance of our various scoring methods in the 2015 D3R Grand Challenge and find that although the merits of some features of our approach remain inconclusive, our scoring methods performed comparably to a state-of-the-art scoring function that was fit to binding affinity data.     

Performance of HADDOCK and a simple contact-based protein–ligand binding affinity predictor in the D3R Grand Challenge 2

We present the performance of HADDOCK, our information-driven docking software, in the second edition of the D3R Grand Challenge. In this blind experiment, participants were requested to predict the structures and binding affinities of complexes between the Farnesoid X nuclear receptor and 102 different ligands. The models obtained in Stage1 with HADDOCK and ligand-specific protocol show an average ligand RMSD of 5.1 Å from the crystal structure. Only 6/35 targets were within 2.5 Å RMSD from the reference, which prompted us to investigate the limiting factors and revise our protocol for Stage2. The choice of the receptor conformation appeared to have the strongest influence on the results. Our Stage2 models were of higher quality (13 out of 35 were within 2.5 Å), with an average RMSD of 4.1 Å. The docking protocol was applied to all 102 ligands to generate poses for binding affinity prediction. We developed a modified version of our contact-based binding affinity predictor PRODIGY, using the number of interatomic contacts classified by their type and the intermolecular electrostatic energy. This simple structure-based binding affinity predictor shows a Kendall’s Tau correlation of 0.37 in ranking the ligands (7th best out of 77 methods, 5th/25 groups). Those results were obtained from the average prediction over the top10 poses, irrespective of their similarity/correctness, underscoring the robustness of our simple predictor. This results in an enrichment factor of 2.5 compared to a random predictor for ranking ligands within the top 25%, making it a promising approach to identify lead compounds in virtual screening.     

D3R Grand Challenge 2: blind prediction of protein–ligand poses,affinity rankings,and relative binding free energies

The Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) ran Grand Challenge 2 (GC2) from September 2016 through February 2017. This challenge was based on a dataset of structures and affinities for the nuclear receptor farnesoid X receptor (FXR), contributed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. The dataset contained 102 IC50 values, spanning six orders of magnitude, and 36 high-resolution co-crystal structures with representatives of four major ligand classes. Strong global participation was evident, with 49 participants submitting 262 prediction submission packages in total. Procedurally, GC2 mimicked Grand Challenge 2015 (GC2015), with a Stage 1 subchallenge testing ligand pose prediction methods and ranking and scoring methods, and a Stage 2 subchallenge testing only ligand ranking and scoring methods after the release of all blinded co-crystal structures. Two smaller curated sets of 18 and 15 ligands were developed to test alchemical free energy methods. This overview summarizes all aspects of GC2, including the dataset details, challenge procedures, and participant results. We also consider implications for progress in the field, while highlighting methodological areas that merit continued development. Similar to GC2015, the outcome of GC2 underscores the pressing need for methods development in pose prediction, particularly for ligand scaffolds not currently represented in the Protein Data Bank (http://www.pdb.org), and in affinity ranking and scoring of bound ligands.     

Docking-undocking combination applied to the D3R Grand Challenge 2015

Novel methods for drug discovery are constantly under development and independent exercises to test and validate them for different goals are extremely useful. The drug discovery data resource (D3R) Grand Challenge 2015 offers an excellent opportunity as an external assessment and validation experiment for Computer-Aided Drug Discovery methods. The challenge comprises two protein targets and prediction tests: binding mode and ligand ranking. We have faced both of them with the same strategy: pharmacophore-guided docking followed by dynamic undocking (a new method tested experimentally here) and, where possible, critical assessment of the results based on pre-existing information. In spite of using methods that are qualitative in nature, our results for binding mode and ligand ranking were amongst the best on Hsp90. Results for MAP4K4 were less positive and we track the different performance across systems to the level of previous knowledge about accessible conformational states. We conclude that docking is quite effective if supplemented by dynamic undocking and empirical information (e.g. binding hot spots, productive protein conformations). This setup is well suited for virtual screening, a frequent application that was not explicitly tested in this edition of the D3R Grand Challenge 2015. Protein flexibility remains as the main cause for hard failures.     

Performance of multiple docking and refinement methods in the pose prediction D3R prospective Grand Challenge 2016

We describe the performance of multiple pose prediction methods for the D3R 2016 Grand Challenge. The pose prediction challenge includes 36 ligands, which represent 4 chemotypes and some miscellaneous structures against the FXR ligand binding domain. In this study we use a mix of fully automated methods as well as human-guided methods with considerations of both the challenge data and publicly available data. The methods include ensemble docking, colony entropy pose prediction, target selection by molecular similarity, molecular dynamics guided pose refinement, and pose selection by visual inspection. We evaluated the success of our predictions by method, chemotype, and relevance of publicly available data. For the overall data set, ensemble docking, visual inspection, and molecular dynamics guided pose prediction performed the best with overall mean RMSDs of 2.4, 2.2, and 2.2 Å respectively. For several individual challenge molecules, the best performing method is evaluated in light of that particular ligand. We also describe the protein, ligand, and public information data preparations that are typical of our binding mode prediction workflow.     

A fragment-based approach to the SAMPL3 Challenge

The success of molecular fragment-based design depends critically on the ability to make predictions of binding poses and of affinity ranking for compounds assembled by linking fragments. The SAMPL3 Challenge provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the performance of a state-of-the-art fragment-based design methodology with respect to these requirements. In this article, we present results derived from linking fragments to predict affinity and pose in the SAMPL3 Challenge. The goal is to demonstrate how incorporating different aspects of modeling protein-ligand interactions impact the accuracy of the predictions, including protein dielectric models, charged versus neutral ligands, ΔΔGs solvation energies, and induced conformational stress. The core method is based on annealing of chemical potential in a Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GC/MC) simulation. By imposing an initially very high chemical potential and then automatically running a sequence of simulations at successively decreasing chemical potentials, the GC/MC simulation efficiently discovers statistical distributions of bound fragment locations and orientations not found reliably without the annealing. This method accounts for configurational entropy, the role of bound water molecules, and results in a prediction of all the locations on the protein that have any affinity for the fragment. Disregarding any of these factors in affinity-rank prediction leads to significantly worse correlation with experimentally-determined free energies of binding. We relate three important conclusions from this challenge as applied to GC/MC: (1) modeling neutral ligands--regardless of the charged state in the active site--produced better affinity ranking than using charged ligands, although, in both cases, the poses were almost exactly overlaid; (2) simulating explicit water molecules in the GC/MC gave better affinity and pose predictions; and (3) applying a ΔΔGs solvation correction further improved the ranking of the neutral ligands. Using the GC/MC method under a variety of parameters in the blinded SAMPL3 Challenge provided important insights to the relevant parameters and boundaries in predicting binding affinities using simulated annealing of chemical potential calculations.     

Optimal strategies for virtual screening of induced-fit and flexible target in the 2015 D3R Grand Challenge

Induced fit or protein flexibility can make a given structure less useful for docking and/or scoring. The 2015 Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) Grand Challenge provided a unique opportunity to prospectively test optimal strategies for virtual screening in these type of targets: heat shock protein 90 (HSP90), a protein with multiple ligand-induced binding modes; and mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase kinase kinase 4 (MAP4K4), a kinase with a large flexible pocket. Using previously known co-crystal structures, we tested predictions from methods that keep the receptor structure fixed and used (a) multiple receptor/ligand co-crystals as binding templates for minimization or docking (“close”), (b) methods that align or dock to a single receptor (“cross”), and (c) a hybrid approach that chose from multiple bound ligands as initial templates for minimization to a single receptor (“min-cross”). Pose prediction using our “close” models resulted in average ligand RMSDs of 0.32 and 1.6 Å for HSP90 and MAP4K4, respectively, the most accurate models of the community-wide challenge. On the other hand, affinity ranking using our “cross” methods performed well overall despite the fact that a fixed receptor cannot model ligand-induced structural changes,. In addition, “close” methods that leverage the co-crystals of the different binding modes of HSP90 also predicted the best affinity ranking. Our studies suggest that analysis of changes on the receptor structure upon ligand binding can help select an optimal virtual screening strategy.     

Prediction of binding poses to FXR using multi-targeted docking combined with molecular dynamics and enhanced sampling

Advanced molecular docking methods often aim at capturing the flexibility of the protein upon binding to the ligand. In this study, we investigate whether instead a simple rigid docking method can be applied, if combined with multiple target structures to model the backbone flexibility and molecular dynamics simulations to model the sidechain and ligand flexibility. The methods are tested for the binding of 35 ligands to FXR as part of the first stage of the Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) Grand Challenge 2 blind challenge. The results show that the multiple-target docking protocol performs surprisingly well, with correct poses found for 21 of the ligands. MD simulations started on the docked structures are remarkably stable, but show almost no tendency of refining the structure closer to the experimentally found binding pose. Reconnaissance metadynamics enhances the exploration of new binding poses, but additional collective variables involving the protein are needed to exploit the full potential of the method.     

Binding pose and affinity prediction in the 2016 D3R Grand Challenge 2 using the Wilma-SIE method

The Farnesoid X receptor (FXR) exhibits significant backbone movement in response to the binding of various ligands and can be a challenge for pose prediction algorithms. As part of the D3R Grand Challenge 2, we tested Wilma-SIE, a rigid-protein docking method, on a set of 36 FXR ligands for which the crystal structures had originally been blinded. These ligands covered several classes of compounds. To overcome the rigid protein limitations of the method, we used an ensemble of publicly available structures for FXR from the PDB. The use of the ensemble allowed Wilma-SIE to predict poses with average and median RMSDs of 2.3 and 1.4 Å, respectively. It was quite clear, however, that had we used a single structure for the receptor the success rate would have been much lower. The most successful predictions were obtained on chemical classes for which one or more crystal structures of the receptor bound to a molecule of the same class was available. In the absence of a crystal structure for the class, observing a consensus binding mode for the ligands of the class using one or more receptor structures of other classes seemed to be indicative of a reasonable pose prediction. Affinity prediction proved to be more challenging with generally poor correlation with experimental IC50s (Kendall tau?~?0.3). Even when the 36 crystal structures were used the accuracy of the predicted affinities was not appreciably improved. A possible cause of difficulty is the internal energy strain arising from conformational differences in the receptor across complexes, which may need to be properly estimated and incorporated into the SIE scoring function.     

Docking of small molecules to farnesoid X receptors using AutoDock Vina with the Convex-PL potential: lessons learned from D3R Grand Challenge 2

The 2016 D3R Grand Challenge 2 provided an opportunity to test multiple protein–ligand docking protocols on a set of ligands bound to farnesoid X receptor that has many available experimental structures. We participated in the Stage 1 of the Challenge devoted to the docking pose predictions, with the mean RMSD value of our submission poses of 2.9 Å. Here we present a thorough analysis of our docking predictions made with AutoDock Vina and the Convex-PL rescoring potential by reproducing our submission protocol and running a series of additional molecular docking experiments. We conclude that a correct receptor structure, or more precisely, the structure of the binding pocket, plays the crucial role in the success of our docking studies. We have also noticed the important role of a local ligand geometry, which seems to be not well discussed in literature. We succeed to improve our results up to the mean RMSD value of 2.15–2.33 Å  dependent on the models of the ligands, if docking these to all available homologous receptors. Overall, for docking of ligands of diverse chemical series we suggest to perform docking of each of the ligands to a set of multiple receptors that are homologous to the target.     

Predicting binding poses and affinities for protein - ligand complexes in the 2015 D3R Grand Challenge using a physical model with a statistical parameter estimation

The 2015 D3R Grand Challenge provided an opportunity to test our new model for the binding free energy of small molecules, as well as to assess our protocol to predict binding poses for protein-ligand complexes. Our pose predictions were ranked 3–9 for the HSP90 dataset, depending on the assessment metric. For the MAP4K dataset the ranks are very dispersed and equal to 2–35, depending on the assessment metric, which does not provide any insight into the accuracy of the method. The main success of our pose prediction protocol was the re-scoring stage using the recently developed Convex-PL potential. We make a thorough analysis of our docking predictions made with AutoDock Vina and discuss the effect of the choice of rigid receptor templates, the number of flexible residues in the binding pocket, the binding pocket size, and the benefits of re-scoring. However, the main challenge was to predict experimentally determined binding affinities for two blind test sets. Our affinity prediction model consisted of two terms, a pairwise-additive enthalpy, and a non pairwise-additive entropy. We trained the free parameters of the model with a regularized regression using affinity and structural data from the PDBBind database. Our model performed very well on the training set, however, failed on the two test sets. We explain the drawback and pitfalls of our model, in particular in terms of relative coverage of the test set by the training set and missed dynamical properties from crystal structures, and discuss different routes to improve it.     

Deep neural network affinity model for BACE inhibitors in D3R Grand Challenge 4

Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) Grand Challenge 4 (GC4) offered a unique opportunity for designing and testing novel methodology for accurate docking and affinity prediction of ligands in an open and blinded manner. We participated in the beta-secretase 1 (BACE) Subchallenge which is comprised of cross-docking and redocking of 20 macrocyclic ligands to BACE and predicting binding affinity for 154 macrocyclic ligands. For this challenge, we developed machine learning models trained specifically on BACE. We developed a deep neural network (DNN) model that used a combination of both structure and ligand-based features that outperformed simpler machine learning models. According to the results released by D3R, we achieved a Spearman's rank correlation coefficient of 0.43(7) for predicting the affinity of 154 ligands. We describe the formulation of our machine learning strategy in detail. We compared the performance of DNN with linear regression, random forest, and support vector machines using ligand-based, structure-based, and combining both ligand and structure-based features. We compared different structures for our DNN and found that performance was highly dependent on fine optimization of the L2 regularization hyperparameter, alpha. We also developed a novel metric of ligand three-dimensional similarity inspired by crystallographic difference density maps to match ligands without crystal structures to similar ligands with known crystal structures. This report demonstrates that detailed parameterization, careful data training and implementation, and extensive feature analysis are necessary to obtain strong performance with more complex machine learning methods. Post hoc analysis shows that scoring functions based only on ligand features are competitive with those also using structural features. Our DNN approach tied for fifth in predicting BACE-ligand binding affinities.

     

Lessons learned from participating in D3R 2016 Grand Challenge 2: compounds targeting the farnesoid X receptor

D3R 2016 Grand Challenge 2 focused on predictions of binding modes and affinities for 102 compounds against the farnesoid X receptor (FXR). In this challenge, two distinct methods, a docking-based method and a template-based method, were employed by our team for the binding mode prediction. For the new template-based method, 3D ligand similarities were calculated for each query compound against the ligands in the co-crystal structures of FXR available in Protein Data Bank. The binding mode was predicted based on the co-crystal protein structure containing the ligand with the best ligand similarity score against the query compound. For the FXR dataset, the template-based method achieved a better performance than the docking-based method on the binding mode prediction. For the binding affinity prediction, an in-house knowledge-based scoring function ITScore2 and MM/PBSA approach were employed. Good performance was achieved for MM/PBSA, whereas the performance of ITScore2 was sensitive to ligand composition, e.g. the percentage of carbon atoms in the compounds. The sensitivity to ligand composition could be a clue for the further improvement of our knowledge-based scoring function.     

Combining self- and cross-docking as benchmark tools: the performance of DockBench in the D3R Grand Challenge 2

Molecular docking is a powerful tool in the field of computer-aided molecular design. In particular, it is the technique of choice for the prediction of a ligand pose within its target binding site. A multitude of docking methods is available nowadays, whose performance may vary depending on the data set. Therefore, some non-trivial choices should be made before starting a docking simulation. In the same framework, the selection of the target structure to use could be challenging, since the number of available experimental structures is increasing. Both issues have been explored within this work. The pose prediction of a pool of 36 compounds provided by D3R Grand Challenge 2 organizers was preceded by a pipeline to choose the best protein/docking-method couple for each blind ligand. An integrated benchmark approach including ligand shape comparison and cross-docking evaluations was implemented inside our DockBench software. The results are encouraging and show that bringing attention to the choice of the docking simulation fundamental components improves the results of the binding mode predictions.     

Large scale free energy calculations for blind predictions of protein–ligand binding: the D3R Grand Challenge 2015

We describe binding free energy calculations in the D3R Grand Challenge 2015 for blind prediction of the binding affinities of 180 ligands to Hsp90. The present D3R challenge was built around experimental datasets involving Heat shock protein (Hsp) 90, an ATP-dependent molecular chaperone which is an important anticancer drug target. The Hsp90 ATP binding site is known to be a challenging target for accurate calculations of ligand binding affinities because of the ligand-dependent conformational changes in the binding site, the presence of ordered waters and the broad chemical diversity of ligands that can bind at this site. Our primary focus here is to distinguish binders from nonbinders. Large scale absolute binding free energy calculations that cover over 3000 protein–ligand complexes were performed using the BEDAM method starting from docked structures generated by Glide docking. Although the ligand dataset in this study resembles an intermediate to late stage lead optimization project while the BEDAM method is mainly developed for early stage virtual screening of hit molecules, the BEDAM binding free energy scoring has resulted in a moderate enrichment of ligand screening against this challenging drug target. Results show that, using a statistical mechanics based free energy method like BEDAM starting from docked poses offers better enrichment than classical docking scoring functions and rescoring methods like Prime MM-GBSA for the Hsp90 data set in this blind challenge. Importantly, among the three methods tested here, only the mean value of the BEDAM binding free energy scores is able to separate the large group of binders from the small group of nonbinders with a gap of 2.4 kcal/mol. None of the three methods that we have tested provided accurate ranking of the affinities of the 147 active compounds. We discuss the possible sources of errors in the binding free energy calculations. The study suggests that BEDAM can be used strategically to discriminate binders from nonbinders in virtual screening and to more accurately predict the ligand binding modes prior to the more computationally expensive FEP calculations of binding affinity.