In any task in the realm of virtual screening, there need to be many filters applied to a dataset of ligands to downselect the ‘best’ ones on a number of parameters to produce a manageable size. One popular filter is if a compound has a physical pose and good affinity as predicted by tools such as docking or energy minimisation. In my pipeline for downselecting elaborations of compounds proposed as fragment follow-ups, I calculate the pose and ΔΔG by energy minimizing the ligand with atom restraints to matching atoms in the fragment inspiration. I either use RDKit using its MMFF94 forcefield or PyRosetta using its ref2015 scorefunction, all made possible by the lovely tool Fragmenstein.

With RDKit as the minimizer the protein neighborhood around the ligand is fixed and placements take on average 21s whereas with PyRosetta placements, they take on average 238s (and I can run placements in parallel luckily). I would ideally like to use RDKit as the placement method since it is so fast and I would like to perform 500K within a few days but, I wanted to confirm that RDKit is ‘good enough’ compared to the slightly more rigorous tool PyRosetta (it allows residues to relax and samples more conformations with the longer runtime I think).

To find out if I can trust RDKit’s placement with the MMFF94 forcefield, check out this repo where I performed my analysis of 10 repeated placements of 69 fragment follow-up ligands with 1 protein template. I wrote out the notebooks so you can easily follow my calculations of ligand and residue RMSD between methods and checks of the conformations with PoseBusters, outputting some surprising results!

If you’re running into the same questions of comparing pose and affinity prediction methods, I hope you find the code useful for your own analysis.