Comparative Analysis of Relative Ligand Binding Free Energy Simulation Methods: Amber-TI, GROMACS-NETI, OpenMM-FEP, and BLaDE-MSLD
Hajin Lee, In Jung KimiD, Sungjun Kim, Minsik BaeiD, Bomi JeongiD, Seonghoon KimiD, Sunhwan JoiD, Jumin Lee, Wonpil ImiD
Abstract
Structure-based drug design has become increasingly important in the pharmaceutical industry for accelerating the discovery of effective drug candidates. In particular, ligand binding free energy serves as a critical metric for predicting drug efficacy during the key stages of hit discovery and lead optimization. Continuous progresses have been made in the prediction of ligand binding free energies, but direct comparisons of different methods using the same force field remain challenging due to their unique implementations into different simulation engines. In this study, we present a direct comparison of four popular methodologies (Amber-TI, GROMACS-NETI, OpenMM-FEP, and BLaDE-MSLD) for calculating relative binding free energies ({Delta}{Delta}Gbind) with the same Amber protein and ligand force fields using MolCube Alchemical Free Energy Simulator (MolCube-AFES), which provides an input generation workflow to support {Delta}{Delta}Gbind calculations of all four methods. We used 80 alchemical transformations (among the JACS benchmark set by Wang et al.) and two additional applications to compare the predicted {Delta}{Delta}Gbind from the four methods against experimental measurements. All four methods reproduced experimentally observed trends with most transformations within {+/-}2 kcal/mol from experiments and show broadly comparable accuracy with no statistically significant performance differences across the benchmark dataset. These results demonstrate that MolCube-AFES enables controlled, cross platform benchmarking and show that all four different alchemical free energy methods deliver statistically equivalent accuracy, with method selection guided by workflow requirements such as throughput, portability, and perturbation network design rather than expected differences in performances.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Field percentile
- top 21%
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- A Non-Alchemical Absolute Binding Free Energy Framework for Small Molecule Drugs
Yu Shi, Jianing Li·bioRxiv·Feb 19, 2026
- Predicting binding free energies: Frontiers and benchmarks
D. L. Mobley, M. K. Gilson·bioRxiv·Sep 11, 2016
- The SAMPL6 SAMPLing challenge: Assessing the reliability and efficiency of binding free energy calculations
A. Rizzi, T. Jensen, … J. D. Chodera·bioRxiv·Jan 3, 2020
- Automated docking refinement and virtual compound screening with absolute binding free energy calculations
G. Heinzelmann, M. K. Gilson·bioRxiv·Apr 15, 2020
- BindFlow: a free, user-friendly pipeline for absolute binding free energy calculations using free energy perturbation or MM(PB/GB)SA
Alejandro Martínez León, Lucas Andersen, Jochen S. Hub·Journal of Chemical Theory and ComputationPeer-reviewed·Jan 7, 2026
- Teaching free energy calculations to learn from experimental data
M. Wieder, J. Fass, J. D. Chodera·bioRxiv·Aug 24, 2021