Back

Computational Lead Optimization on BACE1: Relative Binding Free Energy Perturbation as the Terminal Refinement Layer

Alejo, K.; Korban, C.; Chung, C.

2026-07-08 biochemistry
10.64898/2026.07.07.737131 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Structure-based drug discovery is known to apply computational methods in a tiered hierarchy, with each layer narrowing the candidate set and refining the binding picture before committing to the next, more expensive step. We present a four-tiered computational benchmarking study evaluating five engines against a panel of 36 compounds targeting B-secretase 1 (BACE1), a validated Alzheimer's disease target with extensive co-crystal ground truth. This study evaluates Flexible Docking and Boltz2 Cofolding as the primary tier, followed by Ensemble Docking, and then Protein-Ligand MD with MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA post-processing. This is then concluded with Relative Binding Free Energy Perturbation (RevFEP) as the terminal refinement layer. Each method was benchmarked against the experimental binding free energies derived from the co-crystal structures spanning -7.85 to -11.35 kcal/mol. Our findings revealed that Flexible Docking reproduced the co-crystal binding mode for 35 of 36 ligands (97.2% within 2.0 A RMSD) but did not rank potency at this resolution. Boltz2 CoFolding provided an orthogonal structural cross-check with a receptor backbone RMSD of 0.293 A against the experimental co-crystal structure. Ensemble Docking identified the optimal receptor conformation for downstream FEP setup. MD with MM/GBSA decomposition identified van der Waals complementarity as the primary potency driver (Pearson r = +0.855, R2 = 0.732 on a 10-compound subset). RevFEP delivered the highest affinity correlation of any method (Pearson r = +0.662, R2 = 0.438, Spearman p = +0.624, mean absolute error 1.02 kcal/mol across all 36 ligands), resolving potency differences within a narrow 3.5 kcal/mol congeneric window that no other engine could discriminate. We characterize what each engine contributes independently and where RevFEP delivers signals no other engine achieves.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
238 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
30.8%
2
ChemMedChem
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 16%
5.5%
4
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.3%
5
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
494 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
6
Communications Chemistry
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
7
ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
8
ACS Omega
105 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.5%
9
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
77 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.2%
10
Chemical Science
73 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
11
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 26%
1.9%
12
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 45%
1.7%
13
ACS Chemical Biology
167 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
14
Biochemistry
148 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
15
Alzheimer's & Dementia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
16
Journal of Biological Chemistry
690 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
17
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 22%
1.1%
18
ACS Chemical Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
19
The Journal of Physical Chemistry B
167 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
20
Journal of the American Chemical Society
217 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
21
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.8%
22
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
88 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
24
Molecules
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
26
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
140 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
27
ACS Central Science
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%