alphaFeedback

You’re reading v1 — jump to latest

WorksPhysics and Astronomy

Quantum-accurate atomistic modeling of enzyme catalysis using a machine learned potential

AI contributions
Not recorded for this paper
View details

Abstract

Electronic rearrangements associated with bond forming/breaking in catalytic enzymes require quantum mechanical (QM) treatment beyond classical molecular mechanics (MM). Hybrid QM/MM methods enable tractable simulations but require system-specific setup and are sensitive to the QM region choice and treatment of the QM/MM interface. We demonstrate quantum-accurate treatment of all-atom, complete enzymes in explicit solvent comprising up to 54k atoms and 1 microsecond of total simulation time using the machine-learned interatomic potential (MLIP) eSEN-omol. We reproduce experimental barrier trends for Claisen rearrangement in chorismate mutase, resolve critical intermediate states in PETase catalyzed polymer depolymerization, and distinguish mechanistic alternatives for metal-activated phosphoryl transfer in nucleoside diphosphate kinase. We realize 1000x speedups relative to typical QM/MM calculations without system-specific tuning. These results establish MLIPs as a practical route to QM-accurate simulations of enzyme catalysis.

Introduction

Enzymes are molecular machines that catalyze the chemical reactions underlying life and play a central role in metabolism, signaling, and biotechnology [1, 2, 3]. Scalable mechanistic simulations of enzyme catalysis remains a fundamental challenge because of the requirement for both quantum mechanical (QM) accuracy and the ability to simulate large systems over extended timescales, typically nanoseconds to microseconds [4]. Classical molecular mechanics (MM) force fields rely on a fixed bonding topology and thus cannot model changes in bonding. Reactive force fields permit such changes, but typically require bespoke parameterizations for each system, can miss subtle electronic effects, and tend to reproduce reference reaction energetics only qualitatively [5].

This fundamental trade-off between QM accuracy and biomolecular scale has motivated a long history of approximate modeling [6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. Traditional strategies to reduce complexity include truncated cluster models of the active site [11], which can incur errors from neglecting a large portion of the system, and hybrid QM/MM approaches, which embed a reactive QM region within a larger classical environment [4, 8].

However, such calculations necessitate system-specific knowledge and expert judgment regarding definition of the QM and MM regions, selection of QM functional and MM force fields, and treatment of the QM/MM boundary. This often requires extensive parameter tuning and can risk overfitting to experimental data [8, 12, 13, 14]. The quality of QM/MM predictions is particularly sensitive to choice of the QM region: too small leads to unreliable results, too large becomes computationally prohibitive [14, 15]. Computational expense can be mitigated with semi-empirical QM methods but at a cost in accuracy [16, 17]. When solvent plays a role in the reaction, the manually chosen number QM water molecules adds another parameter that can strongly influence results [18, 19]. QM/MM still remains computationally expensive, with simulations typically limited to tens of picoseconds, [19, 20] making it challenging to observe barrier crossing events.

Machine-learned interatomic potentials (MLIPs) offer an appealing alternative. MLIPs are trained on QM datasets to replicate the performance of QM simulations with orders of magnitude lower computational cost. Large biomolecules represent challenging systems for MLIPs because of their chemically heterogeneous nature, complex many-body effects, and the requirement of stable long-time molecular dynamics (MD) integration. Recent specialized frameworks have shown great promise. Wang et al. introduced AI2^2BMD, which achieves ab initio protein energies and forces using a fragmentation strategy and treats solvent using a polarizable model [21]. The GEMS and SO3LR frameworks are complementary routes to ab initio accuracy for biomolecular simulations that have been demonstrated on protein folding and solvation dynamics in small systems [22, 23]. ML/MM approaches, in which an MLIP is used for the QM region, have thus been used to alleviate the simulation costs of QM/MM [24, 25, 26], but the challenges associated with ML region specification, MM force field choice, ML/MM boundary treatment, and solvent modeling all remain.

Recent reports have shown that models trained on Open Molecules 2025 dataset [28] match DFT performance in numerous chemical and biological applications [25, 29, 30, 31].

We show here that eSEN-omol1, the base model of UMA [32], can readily scale and be effectively applied to full-chain enzyme catalysis in explicit solvent, treating all atoms at the same level of theory and removing the need for region and boundary selection (Figure 1A). eSEN-omol is a message-passing MLIP trained on OMol25 at the ω\omegaB97M-V/def2-TZVPD level of theory [28]. We leverage established enhanced sampling protocols for rare-event simulation to promote transition state crossing and accurately estimate barrier heights in enzymatic reactions [33]. Our integrated distributed inference framework is able to run fully solvated enzyme simulations comprising 32-54k atoms on 8 GPUs. Additional GPUs accelerate simulations and with up to 32 GPUs simulation speeds of up to millions of steps per day on these systems can be realized (Appendix A.2) and total simulation times of ∼1.0 μs\sim1.0\ \mu\mathrm{s} are aggregated in this work.

Overview and validation of eSEN-omol for enzyme catalysis simulations

Figure 1. Overview and validation of eSEN-omol for enzyme catalysis simulations. (A) Overview of our eSEN-omol based enzyme workflow. Only atom coordinates rir_i and atomic numbers ZiZ_i are required as input; no bonding topology or QM-region/force-field/interface definition steps are necessary. (B) Parity plot showing that eSEN-omol single point energies match DFT energies well for chorismate mutase clusters (∼350\sim350 atoms) along the reaction coordinate. (C) Simulations of the three large proteins considered in this work and 1FME a highly-charged peptide are stable under eSEN-omol simulations and remain close to their folded states (Cα_\alpha RMSD <2< 2 Å) over 2 ns of simulation with explicit solvent. (D) Dipole density correlation function following [27] shows that eSEN-omol preserves dipole correlations in the long range limit and compares favorably to the “long-range” models reported therein. (E) Potential of mean force (PMF) of a single NaCl ion pair in water (0.026 M) probed by umbrella sampling on the Na–Cl distance. The PMF correlations are largely damped by the high dielectric constant of water around rcut=6r_{\mathrm{cut}} = 6 Å, though features beyond that are resolvable. (F) Analogous PMF for an NaCl ion pair in hexane (0.011 M), a low dielectric solvent. eSEN-omol reproduces the predictions of the classical CHARMM force field and continuum predictions out to 20 Å ≫rcut=6\gg r_{\mathrm{cut}} = 6 Å. Fitting 1/r1/r to the long range tail of the eSEN-omol PMF accurately predicts the hexane dielectric constant as ϵ=1.87±0.17\epsilon= 1.87 \pm0.17 (inset). See Appendix A.3 for more details on B-E.

We demonstrate eSEN-omol’s suitability for biological simulations by demonstrating that it is able to reproduce sampled cluster DFT single-point energies with high-fidelity, correctly predict long-range electrostatic behavior in scenarios relevant to proteins in solvent environments, and keep proteins correctly folded over many nanoseconds of simulation. Figure 1B-E shows a collection of these validations with supporting details provided in Appendix A.3. We then study a diverse set of enzymatic systems with a range of different reactive mechanisms to recover free energy surfaces and reaction rate estimates and demonstrate the accuracy and transferability of our method using the same eSEN-omol potential with no additional parameterization.

Our results demonstrate a unified approach to accurately modeling free energy barriers and reaction rates in complex enzyme-catalyzed reactions, establishing a practical route to QM-accurate simulations of full-chain, explicit solvent enzyme catalysis without system-specific parameterization or tuning (Figure 1A).

Results and Discussion

Claisen Rearrangement in Chorismate Mutase

Chorismate mutase (CM) is a textbook model for enzyme catalysis [34, 35]. It catalyzes the Claisen rearrangement of chorismate to prephenate, a key step in the biosynthesis of tyrosine and phenylalanine. This reaction also proceeds in aqueous solution via the same concerted pericyclic mechanism. Here, we study the Bacillus subtilis CM enzyme (PDB: 3ZQ8 [36]). Experimentally, the enzyme accelerates the reaction by 10610^6 to 10−710^{-7}-fold relative to aqueous solution [37], with the rate enhancement attributed to preferential stabilization of the chair-like transition state through electrostatic interactions involving an arginine residue in the active site [35, 38, 39].

We first examined the intrinsic reactivity in the gas phase using QM calculations at the ω\omegaB97M-V/def2-TZVPD level of theory. The QM potential energy profile agrees closely with eSEN-omol predictions, with respective barrier heights of 169.8 kJ mol−1^{-1} and 169.0 kJ mol−1^{-1} (Figure S4), providing an initial validation of the pre-trained MLIP. We then introduced explicit water solvent (Figure 2A) and conducted ∼\sim46k-atom eSEN-omol simulations at 300 K and 1 bar with On-the-fly Probability Enhanced Sampling (OPES) [40, 41] along a previously reported collective variable (CV) to drive the Claisen rearrangement (Figure 2B, Appendix B) [19, 34]. The resulting free-energy surface (FES) in water gives a barrier of ΔGwater‡=(119.81±6.24)\Delta G_{\mathrm{water}}^{\ddagger} = (119.81 \pm6.24) kJ mol−1^{-1} (Figure 2) in good agreement with experiment (102.55102.55 kJ mol−1^{-1} [42]) and previous computational studies

Claisen rearrangement catalyzed by chorismate mutase

Figure 2. Claisen rearrangement catalyzed by chorismate mutase. (A) Structure of the full-chain chorismate mutase enzyme PDB: 3ZO8 [36] in explicit water solvent (46k total atoms, 40k water atoms). (B) Close-up view of the chorismate mutase binding-pocket illustrating the Claisen rearrangement reaction where d1d_1 is the C–C forming bond and d2d_2 is the C–O breaking bond. ARG90 is one of the critical residues that forms H-bonds with the substrate. (C) Free energy surfaces for the Claisen rearrangement in water and enzyme binding pocket using eSEN-omol with OPES. The enzyme-catalyzed free energy barrier calculated by eSEN-omol is ΔGenzyme‡=(75.21±2.72)\Delta G^{\ddagger}_{\mathrm{enzyme}} = (75.21 \pm2.72) kJ mol−1^{-1} compared to ΔGwater‡=(119.81±6.24)\Delta G^{\ddagger}_{\mathrm{water}} = (119.81 \pm6.24) kJ mol−1^{-1} in water. (D) Comparison of simulated and experimental kinetics. Gas-phase barrier heights are the 0 K electronic energy differences between optimized reactant and transition state structures. For aqueous and enzyme-catalyzed systems, activation free energies were predicted from OPES calculations and verified by computing OPESf rate constants. Comparison is made to previous studies using similar range-separated hybrid DFT functionals: the ML/MM values from Thürlemann et al. [44] with an ML model trained on ω\omegaB97M-D4/ma-def2-TZVPP reference data, and the best-estimate QM/MM value reported by Li and Chan [19], with the QM region treated at the ω\omegaB97X-3c/6-31G** level. Experimental barrier data are taken from Kast et al. [37].

Gas-phase reaction profile for chorismate-to-prephenate conversion

Figure S4. Gas-phase reaction profile for chorismate-to-prephenate conversion computed with eSEN-omol and KS-DFT using ω\omegaB97M-V/def2-TZVPD in ORCA on structures obtained from the growing string method.

(102.09 ±\pm 2.51 kJ mol−1^{-1} [18]) (fig:2D). Finally, we conducted OPES simulations of the reaction within the full-chain, explicitly-solvated enzyme environment and find that the pre-trained eSEN-omol predicts a reaction barrier of ΔGenzyme‡=(75.21±2.72)\Delta G^{\ddagger}_{\mathrm{enzyme}} = (75.21 \pm2.72) kJ mol−1^{-1}, in reasonable agreement with the experimentally-reported value of 64.43 kJ mol−1^{-1} [37] (fig:2C,fig:2D), and corresponding to a ∼45\sim45 kJ mol−1^{-1} reduction compared to the barrier in water. The ∼10\sim10 kJ mol−1^{-1} discrepancy with respect to experiment is comparable to the errors in the DFT training energies underpinning eSEN-omol [43]. Further, the relative barrier reduction ΔΔG‡=ΔGwater‡−ΔGenzyme‡\Delta\Delta G^{\ddagger} = \Delta G^{\ddagger}_{\mathrm{water}} - \Delta G^{\ddagger}_{\mathrm{enzyme}}, which can mitigate systematic errors, differs by only ∼6.5\sim6.5 kJ mol−1^{-1}.

We additionally computed rate constants using OPES flooding (OPESf) [45]. In water, we obtained a rate constant of kwater=(9.01±4.53)×10−9 s−1k_{\mathrm{water}} = (9.01 \pm4.53) \times10^{-9}\ \mathrm{s}^{-1} corresponding effective activation free energy of Eawater=(119.69±1.28) kJ mol−1E_{\mathrm{a}}^{\mathrm{water}} = (119.69 \pm1.28)\ \mathrm{kJ\ mol}^{-1} (Figure S7). In the enzyme, the calculated rate constant increases to kenzyme=(0.26±0.12) s−1k_{\mathrm{enzyme}} = (0.26 \pm0.12)\ \mathrm{s}^{-1} implying an effective activation free energy of Eaenzyme=(76.77±1.16) kJ mol−1E_{\mathrm{a}}^{\mathrm{enzyme}} = (76.77 \pm1.16)\ \mathrm{kJ\ mol}^{-1}. The calculated kinetic activation energies are in excellent agreement with the free energy barriers within ∼1.5 kJ mol−1\sim1.5\ \mathrm{kJ\ mol}^{-1}, providing strong support for the consistency of the independent thermodynamic and kinetic barrier height estimations. The predicted kenzyme/kwater=3.2×107k_{\mathrm{enzyme}}/k_{\mathrm{water}} = 3.2 \times10^{7} acceleration is in good agreement with the experimentally reported accelerations of 106−10710^{6} - 10^{7}-fold [37]. These results constitute a marked improvement on replicating experimental barriers over previous ML/MM [44] and QM/MM [19] studies at comparable (high) electronic-structure levels of theory (fig:2D). We also note that the QM/MM study found that QM region selection had a profound effect on the computed barrier [19], a complication which eSEN-omol avoids.

Top: eSEN-omol-OPESf setup and bottom: cumulative distributions of reweighted OPESf escape times

Figure S7. (Top) eSEN-omol-OPESf setup for computing the kinetics of claisen rearrangement in (left) aqueous environment and (right) chorismate mutase 3ZO8. (Bottom) Cumulative distribution of reweighted OPESf escape times fitted to a Poisson distribution obtained in the (left) aqueous and (right) enzyme environment respectively. The Poisson fits cannot be rejected under a two-sample KS test at the α=0.05\alpha= 0.05 significance level

Ester-Bond Hydrolysis in PETase

The PETase enzyme from Ideonella sakaiensis is a promising biocatalyst for depolymerization of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) [46]. PETase employs the canonical catalytic SER-HIS-ASP triad for PET hydrolysis [47, 48] (fig:3A, fig:3B). Structural and biochemical studies suggest that PET hydrolysis proceeds through sequential acylation and deacylation steps [46]. During acylation, the catalytic SER160 attacks the ester bond of PET to form an acyl-enzyme intermediate (AEI), which is subsequently hydrolyzed by a water molecule to regenerate the active enzyme while releasing the product during the deacylation step. A number of QM/MM studies have probed the mechanism and free energy surface associated with this reaction [49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54], but differences in DFT settings [50, 53], selection of the QM region [53, 55], length of the polymer chains [51], and choice of CVs [49, 53] has led to debate on whether the acylation [20, 50] or deacylation [49, 56] step is rate limiting and whether each reaction proceeds in a single step [49] or through a two-step tetrahedral intermediate [51].

Here, we utilize the solvated PETase structure from Burgin et al. (PDB: 6EQE), as well as the corresponding reaction coordinates (RCs) [49, 57], and PET is represented by a bis(2-hydroxyethyl) terephthalate (BHET) dimer. We conducted ∼\sim54k-atom replica exchange umbrella sampling (REUS) [58] to sample the acylation and deacylation pathways (Appendix C.3). Transition state region geometries are consistent with the transition state structures reported by Burgin et al. [49].

As illustrated in fig:3C, we predict an effective free energy barrier of (79.03±4.2) kJ mol−1(79.03 \pm4.2)\ \mathrm{kJ\ mol}^{-1}, derived from the acylation step, to be rate limiting, in good agreement with prior QM/MM studies [20, 49, 50, 51] and experimental measurements for the BHET dimer [46]. We assume, as have others [20, 49, 50, 51], that the acylation and deacylation step are separable, as diffusion of BHET away from the enzyme effectively renders the acylation step irreversible. Our results are in good agreement with experimental kcatk_{\mathrm{cat}} derived barrier heights of (75.19±0.4) kJ mol−1(75.19 \pm0.4)\ \mathrm{kJ\ mol}^{-1} [46, 59] and that predicted by Burgin et al. of 76.5 kJ mol−176.5\ \mathrm{kJ\ mol}^{-1} [49]. Compared to Burgin et al., however, our FES exposes some key mechanistic differences. First, our calculations predict acylation, rather than deacylation, to be rate-limiting, as was found by other studies [20, 50]. The highest free energy along the acylation reaction at transition state TS2 is (79.03±4.2) kJ mol−1(79.03 \pm4.2)\ \mathrm{kJ\ mol}^{-1} (fig:3D, Table S5), whereas the highest barrier along the deacylation reaction at transition state TS3 is slightly lower at (60.72±3.0) kJ mol−1(60.72 \pm3.0)\ \mathrm{kJ\ mol}^{-1} (fig:3E, Table S5). Second, despite using the identical CV and similar umbrella sampling methods, we predict both acylation and deacylation to proceed by a two-step mechanisms with well-defined intermediates as opposed to a single concerted step. The acylation intermediate I1 lies ∼\sim19 kJ mol−1\mathrm{kJ\ mol}^{-1} lower in free energy than TS1 and ∼\sim25 kJ mol−1\mathrm{kJ\ mol}^{-1} lower than TS2, splitting the nucleophilic addition of the SER160 side chain and the elimination of the BHET leaving group. The deacylation intermediate I2, lies ∼\sim27 kJ mol−1\mathrm{kJ\ mol}^{-1} lower in free energy than TS3 and ∼\sim19 kJ mol−1\mathrm{kJ\ mol}^{-1} lower than TS4, splitting the attack of catalytic water and the elimination of SER160 to regenerate the enzyme. Both intermediates show a distinct tetrahedral geometry centered on the PET ester carbonyl carbon, consistent with the simulations of Guo et al. [51], which employed a higher level of DFT theory (M06-2X/6-31G) than Burgin et al. (DFTB3) [49] who did not find this behavior. This observation is consistent with previous work showing that PBE and DFTB3 tend to underestimate reaction barriers and produce overly smooth free-energy surfaces, whereas methods incorporating exact exchange can better localize charge along bond-breaking and bond-forming coordinates and resolve finer features [51, 53]. Taken together, our results suggest that eSEN-omol, which is trained at a ω\omegaB97M-V/def2-TZVPD level of theory, can accurately predict barrier heights and reaction mechanisms at

ReactionFeatureMean RCΔG\Delta G (kcal mol−1\mathrm{mol}^{-1})95% CI (kcal mol−1\mathrm{mol}^{-1})ΔG\Delta G (kJ mol−1\mathrm{mol}^{-1})95% CI (kJ mol−1\mathrm{mol}^{-1})
AcylationFirst transition (TS1)0.5017.39[16.82, 17.97]72.78[70.37, 75.19]
AcylationIntermediate basin 1 (I1)5.2012.82[11.90, 13.74]53.65[49.80, 57.49]
AcylationSecond transition (TS2)8.2218.89[17.90, 19.88]79.03[74.87, 83.19]
DeacylationThird transition (TS3)-1.1714.51[13.79, 15.23]60.72[57.70, 63.74]
DeacylationIntermediate basin 2 (I2)0.858.04[7.67, 8.42]33.66[32.07, 35.25]
DeacylationFourth transition (TS4)4.7312.41[11.73, 13.08]51.91[49.07, 54.74]

Table S5. PETase FES landmarks.

Acylation and deacylation reactions during hydrolysis of a PET dimer substrate by Ideonella sakaiensis PETase

Figure 3. Acylation and deacylation reactions during hydrolysis of a PET dimer substrate by Ideonella sakaiensis PETase. (A) Structure of the full-chain PETase structure from Burgin et al. [49] in explicit water solvent (54k total atoms, 50k water atoms). (B) Close-up view of the PETase catalytic residues and PET dimer. (C) Comparison of apparent barrier predictions to other QM/MM studies [20, 49, 50, 51] and experimental measurements of BHET dimer hydrolysis [46, 59]. (D-E) The acylation and deacylation FES calculated by replica exchange umbrella sampling (REUS) (50 ns total simulation) using the reaction coordinates (RCs) (Appendix C.2) from Burgin et al. [49]. We observe a distinct, tetrahedral intermediate structures, stabilized by the enzyme, in both the acylation (I1) and deacylaton (I2) reactions, consistent with the metastable intermediate states reported in Guo et al. [51], but not in Burgin et al. [49] despite our calculations using RCs from the latter. Our measured barriers place acylation at (79.03 ± 4.2) kJ mol⁻¹ and deacylation at (60.73 ± 3.0) kJ mol⁻¹, and support acylation as the rate limiting step.

∼1000× speedups [19, 51] relative to equivalent QM/MM methods.

Enzyme-catalyzed phosphoryl transfer in nucleoside diphosphate kinase

NDPK is a metal-activated phosphotransferase that balances cellular pools of nucleoside triphosphates for signaling, metabolism, and mitochondrial function [60, 61].

It operates through a ping–pong mechanism in which the active-site HIS122 captures the γ\gamma-phosphoryl group of a nucleoside triphosphates (NTP) such as ATP, and donates it to an incoming nucleoside diphosphate (NDP) [62, 63]. It has been shown that key energetics of QM/MM approaches often fail to converge until the QM region is expanded to hundreds of atoms [8, 64, 65, 66], making simulation exceedingly costly and limited to short time scales. Therefore, we sought to model the NDPK dephosphorylation half-reaction in quantum-accurate simulations with full-chain proteins, explicit solvent, and a metal ion using eSEN-omol. We initialized our eSEN-omol simulations of NDPK from the Dictyostelium discoideum crystal structure (PDB: 1KDN [60]).

We calculated the FES of the phosphoryl transfer reaction using well-tempered metadynamics (WTMetaD) [68] driven in two collective variables: CV1_1 tracks nucleophilic attack of HIS122 NδN\delta on the γ\gamma-phosphorus, and CV2_2 tracks proton transfer from NδN\delta of HIS122 to the γ\gamma-phosphoryl oxygen (Appendix D). The FES suggests that the low-free energy pathway corresponds to a two-step mechanism rather than the concerted proton/phosphoryl transfer previously hypothesized [11] (Figure 4C). In the first step, the proton on the doubly-protonated HIS122 hops to a γ\gamma-phosphoryl oxygen (I→II→III). The protonated γ\gamma-phosphoryl group then transfers through an SN_\mathrm{N}2-like transition state to NδN\delta of HIS122, completing the dephosphorylation half-reaction (III→IV→V). Once the phosphorylation reaction is completed, the proton previously transferred from HIS122 to γ\gamma-phosphoryl is free to hop back and forth between the β\beta-phosphoryl on ADP and the phosphoryl group on HIS122 (V→VI) with a barrier of just ∼7.5 kJ mol−1^{-1}. The transition state (VII) of the concerted proton/phosphoryl transfer mechanism (I→VII→V) stands ∼100 kJ mol−1^{-1} above the reactant, which is substantially higher than the corresponding value of ∼70 kJ mol−1^{-1} for the transition state (IV) of the rate-limiting second step of the two-step pathway (III→IV→V). We note that, as is the case for all low-dimensional FES projections, barrier heights depend on the choice of CVs and care should be taken not to overinterpret reaction paths and activation energies. Nevertheless, the CVs here were chosen from physical understanding of the mechanism, resolve both the two-step and concerted pathways within the same FES, and identify the two-step pathway as lower in free energy. As we show below, we observe good agreement of the predicted barrier height for the putative rate limiting step with an OPESf rate calculation.

NDPK phosphoryl transfer dephosphorylation half-reaction

Figure 4. NDPK phosphoryl transfer dephosphorylation half-reaction. (A) Representative structure of NDPK structure in explicit water solvent (32k total atoms, 30k water atoms). (B) Close-up view of the relaxed binding pocket showing ATP hydrogen-bond contacts to TYR56, ARG92, THR98, and ASN119 and octahedral hexacoordination of the Mg2+^{2+} ion with the three phosphoryl groups of ATP, two water molecules, and GLU58. (C) FES from 2D WTMetaD along the phosphoryl-transfer coordinate CV1_1 and proton-transfer coordinate CV2_2. The low-free energy pathway for the dephosphorylation half-reaction is predicted to proceed via a two-step mechanism comprising a proton transfer from the doubly-protonated HIS122 to a γ\gamma-phosphoryl oxygen (I→\rightarrowII→\rightarrowIII) followed by transfer of the protonated γ\gamma-phosphoryl group to Nδ\delta of HIS122 through an SN2-like transition state. Upon completion of the phosphoryl transfer reaction, the hydrogen on the phosphorylated HIS is free to transfer back and forth between the negatively charged oxygen atoms of β\beta-phosphoryl group on ADP and the phosphorylated HIS (V→\rightarrowVI). (D,E) FES from 1D US for proton transfer and phosphoryl transfer with corresponding free energy barriers of ΔG1‡=(27.49±1.05)\Delta G_1^{\ddagger} = (27.49 \pm1.05) kJ mol−1^{-1} and ΔG2‡=(73.05±1.86)\Delta G_2^{\ddagger} = (73.05 \pm1.86) kJ mol−1^{-1}. (F) Comparison of estimated barriers from experiment [67], US, OPESf, and the AM1 cluster-model benchmark [11].

As an independent verification of the free energy barriers calculated from 2D WTMetaD, we conducted 1D umbrella sampling (US) [69] of the two elementary steps in the proposed two-step pathway. US calculations in CV2_2 between states I and III exposes proton hopping as a largely uphill transition through the transition state II with an elementary free energy barrier of ΔG1‡=(27.49±1.05)\Delta G_1^{\ddagger} = (27.49 \pm1.05) kJ mol−1^{-1} (Figure 4D). An analogous US calculation in CV1_1 between states III and V resolves phosphoryl transfer to be a single-barrier two-state mechanism with an elementary free energy barrier of ΔG2‡=(73.05±1.86)\Delta G_2^{\ddagger} = (73.05 \pm1.86) kJ mol−1^{-1} (Figure 4E). The barriers computed by 1D US are in agreement with those computed by marginalization over the reaction channels in the 2D WTMetaD FES (Figure S21). The overall free energy change for the dephosphorylation half-reaction between states I and V is approximately ΔG=15\Delta G = 15 kJ mol−1^{-1}.

1D PMFs along CV2 and CV1 comparing umbrella sampling and MetaD

Figure S21. 1D PMFs along CV2_2 (H transfer) and CV1_1 (phosphoryl transfer) from 1D umbrella sampling (US) superposed on those from marginalization of the results of the 2D WTMetaD. The PMFs for the two reactive processes computed under the two methods show good agreement in the location and height of the barrier, although the product along CV2_2 is less stable in the US runs. This likely a result of the marginalization process, where we only considered the samples with CV1_1 values smaller than (-0.3) to isolate the destabilizing effect of the transition state along CV1_1 which is not allowed to be visited in the umbrella sampling windows along CV2_2.

We applied OPESf to the rate limiting phosphoryl transfer step (Figure 4E, Section A.4) [45, 70] and obtained a predicted rate constant of kOPESf=(0.043±0.019)k_\mathrm{OPESf} = (0.043 \pm0.019) s−1^{-1} with a corresponding apparent effective activation free energy of EaOPESf=(81.32±1.13)E_a^\mathrm{OPESf} = (81.32 \pm1.13) kJ mol−1^{-1} (Figure S22). The effective activation energy agrees with the free energy barrier computed by US to within ∼10 kJ mol−1^{-1}. In Figure 4G we compare our US (73 kJ mol−1^{-1}) and OPESf (80.3 kJ mol−1^{-1}) barriers to the value implied by the experimental kcatk_\mathrm{cat} (55.6 kJ mol−1^{-1} [67]). Because kcatk_\mathrm{cat} reports on the full cycle, which is diffusion-limited, this value provides an upper bound on the chemical barrier. The US estimate shows the best agreement with experiment, exceeding it by ∼17 kJ mol−1^{-1}, representing a roughly five-fold error reduction from the previous semi-empirical AM1 cluster-model (148.4 kJ mol−1^{-1} [11]).

Cumulative distribution of reweighted OPESf phosphoryl transfer step escape times in NDPK

Figure S22. Cumulative distribution of reweighted OPESf phosphoryl transfer step escape times in NDPK fitted to a Poisson distribution. The Poisson fit cannot be rejected under a two-sample KS test at the α=0.05\alpha= 0.05 significance level.

Conclusion

Conclusion

The ability to perform quantum-mechanically accurate simulations of full-chain, explicit-solvent enzyme catalysis without system specific setup or tuning has the potential to transform mechanistic understanding and rational design of enzyme catalysis. In this work, we demonstrate that pre-trained MLIPs provide a viable pathway to this goal. eSEN-omol, trained on OMol25 at a ω\omegaB97M-V/def2-TZVPD level of theory, enables higher accuracy than conventional QM/MM calculations which often employ the B3LYP or PBE functionals that are known to underestimate reaction barriers, and even relatively more accurate functionals like the rarely employed M06-2x and ω\omegaB97X-3c [71, 72]. Additionally, eSEN-omol offers ∼1000×\sim1000\times speedups over QM/MM, as well as treatment of full-chain enzymes in explicit solvent at a unified level of theory without any system-specific setup and tuning. We couple the eSEN-omol simulations to off-the-shelf rare event enhanced sampling techniques – REUS [58], WTMetaD [68], OPES [41], and OPESf [45] – to efficiently estimate free energy surfaces, barriers, and rates. In an application to chorismate mutase, we accurately predicted effective barriers and rate accelerations consistent with experimental measurements. In PETase, our rate-limiting barriers are in good agreement with experiment and prior QM/MM calculations and we resolve previously reported metastable intermediates. In the NDPK dephosphorylation half-reaction, we predicted a two-step reaction mechanism mediated by interstitial solvent molecules and a Mg2+\mathrm{Mg}^{2+} cation in which proton transfer is followed by a rate-limiting phosphoryl transfer, yielding a reaction barrier with an approximately five-fold lower deviation from experiment than a previous semi-empirical QM study.

While transferable MLIPs have demonstrated great promise across broad areas of chemistry [28] and we demonstrated here their promise in biomolecular simulations of enzymatic catalysis, these methods are still relatively new and have certain current limitations and open questions. MLIPs inherit any shortcomings that exist in the training data, including systematic errors associated with the level of DFT theory and statistical errors associated with the diversity of the training set. MLIPs are also generally untested on systems which may require careful treatment of significant charge transfer or multiple electronic or spin states. Unlike classical force fields, long-range electrostatics and induced polarization are implicitly encoded in a graph neural network and not directly accessible for modulation. Further, while MLIPs are much faster than QM calculations, they remain significantly slower than classical potentials, so enhanced sampling techniques with their attendant complexities are still required for MLIP-driven simulations of enzyme catalysis.

The applications in this work have demonstrated that MLIPs can open new avenues for scientific discovery in mechanistic understanding and computational design of enzymes going beyond the prediction of stable structures [73, 74, 75, 76] and conformational ensembles [77, 78, 79, 80] to fully embrace the dynamical complexity of enzyme catalysis. In the NDPK application, for example, eSEN-omol enabled the prediction of complex reaction mechanisms that would otherwise remain difficult to model or suffer from strong biases associated with system-specific setup. As these methods continue to mature, they promise to transform our ability to not only understand complex biomolecular processes, but to systematically design systems with targeted functions.

Acknowledgements

We thank Juno Nam for fruitful conversations and critical feedback on an early draft of the manuscript. Calculations were completed in part with resources provided by the University of Chicago Research Computing Center. We gratefully acknowledge computing time on the University of Chicago high-performance GPU-based cyberinfrastructure supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR-1828629.

Funding: SKA acknowledges support from the Eric and Wendy Schmidt AI in Science Fellowship, a Schmidt Sciences program.

Author contributions:

Conceptualization: ASZ, CLZ, DSL, ALF;

Data curation: ASZ, MG, AS, SD, SKA, MD, BMW, DSL;

Formal analysis: ASZ, MG, AS, SD, SKA;

Investigation: ASZ, MG, AS, SD, SKA, MD, BKM, CLZ, BMW, ZWU, DSL, ALF; Methodology: ASZ, MG, AS, SD, SKA, ALF, BMW;

Project administration: MG, ZWU, DSL, ALF;

Resources: CLZ, ZWU;

Software: MG, MD, BMW;

Supervision: CLZ, ZWU, ALF;

Validation: ASZ, MG, AS, SD, SKA, BMW, DSL;

Visualization: ASZ, MG, AS, SD, SKA, BMW;

Writing – original draft: ASZ, MG, AS, SD, SKA, MD, BMW, DSL, ALF;

Writing – review & editing: MG, BMW, DSL, ALF.

Competing interests: ALF is a co-founder and consultant of Evozyne, Inc. and a co-author of US Patent Applications 16/887,710 and 17/642,582, US Provisional Patent Applications 62/853,919, 62/900,420, 63/314,898, 63/479,378, 63/479,378, 63/521,617, 63/510,130, 63/669,836, and 63/987,554 and International Patent Applications PCT/US2020/035206, PCT/US2020/050466, PCT/US24/10805, PCT/US24/34369, and PC-T/US25/35833.

Data, code, and materials availability: All data are available in the manuscript or the supplementary materials. The eSEN models are available at https://huggingface.co/facebook/OMol25. Code for running models is available at https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairchem.

Supplementary Materials

Materials and Methods

Supplementary Text, Figures, Tables, and References

References

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Appendix

Materials and Methods

Molecular Dynamics Simulations Using eSEN-omol

Molecular modeling calculations were conducted using the ASE suite [81] with the eSEN-omol MLIP through Meta’s fairchem package [82]. Enhanced sampling simulations were performed with PLUMED 2.11.0 enhanced sampling libraries [83].

Distributed Inference

In order to perform enhanced sampling/molecular dynamics of these large enzymatic systems, we need to be able to run simulations on nanosecond/day timescales with O(100k)O(100\mathrm{k}) atoms. There are many MLIPs that can run simulations on this number of atoms but they are either not accurate enough for this application, do not support parallelism [84], rely on strictly local interactions [85, 86], are limited to inter-node only parallelism [87], or require explicit compatibility with the LAMMPS [88, 89] interface which is often not compatible with modern MLIPs. To the best of our knowledge, no existing MLIP can run MD at speeds of nanoseconds/day on large solvated protein systems with O(100k)O(100\mathrm{k}) atoms. Towards this end, we designed our domain decomposed parallelism algorithms to scale eSEN-omol to millions of steps/day (equivalent to ns/day for 1 fs timesteps) speeds for 100k atom systems with any simulator engine including ASE and LAMMPs. The code is freely available on GitHub at https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairchem/. Execution speeds with ASE are reported in Table S1.

SystemAtoms1 GPU8 GPU32 GPU
Water (1000 mol.)3,0000.863.173.27
NDPK32,339oom0.601.53
Chorismate mutase46,323oom0.381.06
PETase (acylation)53,816oom0.350.97

Table S1. Execution speeds of eSEN-omol using ASE under standard NVT dynamics (1 fs timestep, Langevin thermostat at 300 K), measured with the turbo inference settings on Nvidia h200 140GB GPUs nodes using all-to-all graph parallelism with spatial graph partitioning. Values are inferences per day, equal to MD steps per day. OOM denotes out-of-memory.

Note. Single-GPU runs for the solvated enzymes exhaust device memory, as expected at these system sizes.

Suitability of eSEN-omol for Large Scale Biological Simulations

DFT Accuracy

We demonstrate that eSEN-omol matches DFT to within a few kJ/mol accuracy in a 25 Å sampled QM region for configurations harvested from an enzyme catalyzed reactive transition from chorismate to prephenate by the chorismate mutase enzyme under a 1.42 ns, 300 K OPES metadynamics trajectory (Figure 1B, cf. Section 2.1). Defining the collective variable Δd=d(C16−C3)−d(O11−C1)\Delta d = d(\mathrm{C16}-\mathrm{C3}) - d(\mathrm{O11}-\mathrm{C1}), where the two terms describe the forming of C–C and breaking of C–O bonds in the CHB substrate, fifty target values were uniformly spaced between Δd=(−0.060)−0.156\Delta d = (-0.060)-0.156 nm. For each target, the saved trajectory frame having the nearest CV value was selected and each frame was permitted to be used only once. Frames were available every 500 MD steps (0.25 ps). The selected configurations spanned 17.0-1400.75 ps, and the maximum deviation from a target CV value was (5.33×10−4)(5.33 \times10^{-4}) nm. A fixed-position active-site cluster was constructed from each configuration. Each contained the complete CHB substrate; protein residues (denoted by chain name and residue) B57–B60, B63, B73–B75, C7–C9, C78, C90, and C108; and one conserved water molecule (SPC 8334). The catalytic residues were selected following previous QM/MM descriptions of the inter-subunit active site [90, 91], with additional persistent contact and packing residues included subject to a 350-atom computational limit. Pro B58 and Gly C8 were retained to avoid introducing adjacent, overlapping peptide caps. The water molecule was the most persistent water near CHB; its oxygen-to-substrate-heavy-atom distance ranged from 2.55 to 5.00 Å among the selected configurations. The retained protein regions formed seven peptide fragments. Each fragment was terminated with an acetyl group at its N terminus and an N-methylamide group at its C terminus. Cap heavy-atom positions were inherited from the instantaneous geometry of the neighboring backbone, while cap hydrogens were placed using idealized bond lengths and tetrahedral geometry. All other coordinates were transferred directly from the trajectory without geometry optimization. Each resulting cluster contained 343 atoms, had a formal charge of +1, and was treated as a singlet. The atom composition and ordering were identical for all configurations. As validation, the CV was recomputed directly from each trajectory frame and agreed with the corresponding COLVAR value within (2×10−6)(2 \times10^{-6}) nm. Hydrogen connectivity was checked at every selected geometry, and no interatomic separation below 0.70 Å was permitted. These CV-stratified snapshots were randomly subsampled to choose 24 structures. Note that orthogonal environmental coordinates are uncontrolled, so absolute cluster energies should not be interpreted directly as a one-dimensional reaction profile.

Force parity plot and force-error distribution for eSEN-omol versus DFT

Figure S1. Force parity plot for eSEN-omol vs DFT (ω\omegaB97M-V/def2-TZVPD) for chorismate mutase

Simulation Stability

We also demonstrate that all-atom simulations of full-chain chorismate mutase, PETase, and NDPK proteins in explicit solvent and containing a significant number of charged residues, charged substrates, and ions using eSEN-omol are stable and remain properly folded (Cα\mathrm{C}_{\alpha} RMSD <2< 2 Å) over multi-nanosecond time scales (fig:1C, Figure S2, Figure S8, and Figure S17). While the time scales of these unbiased calculations are insufficiently long to observe meaningful conformational changes in large biomolecular systems, the stability of MLIPs over nanosecond time scales is not necessarily given or even assessed in many applications [92].

Trajectory of chorismate mutase compared with 3ZO8

Figure S2. Trajectories of 2 ns NVT simulations with eSEN-omol shows chorismate mutase to remain stable and in agreement with the PDB: 3ZO8 [36] structure to within a Cα_{\alpha} RMSD of (0.71 ± 0.04) Å.

Trajectories of the PETase protein during an unbiased 2 ns NVT simulation

Figure S8. Trajectories of the PETase protein observed during an unbiased 2 ns NVT simulation. We observe that eSEN-omol maintains a stable protein structure, with a Cα RMSD of (0.80±0.04) A˚(0.80 \pm0.04)\ \text{\AA} calculated relative to PDB: 6EQE [105].

RMSD trajectory of 1KDN with bound ATP in water under NVT dynamics

Figure S17. RMSD trajectory of 1KDN with bound ATP in water under NVT dynamics with eSEN-omol. The simulation is stable and the protein remains folded with the Cα_\alpha RMSD in sub-2 Å agreement with the reference PDB: 1KDN throughout a 0.5 ns NVT simulation [60].

Evidence for Correct Long Range Behavior

Highly charged peptide. A 2 ns simulation of the highly charged 1FME peptide [93] comprising 14 charged residues (out of 28 total) and numerous long-range salt bridges produces a close match to experimental NMR structures (fig:1C) and classical force field results (AMBER FF19SB). We solvated 1FME in water (12k atoms in total), minimized the energy, equilibrated 100 ps of NVT at 300K, 100 ps of NPT at 1 atm and then ran unbiased simulations for 2 ns. The Cα\mathrm{C}_{\alpha} RMSD is averaged over the run.

Dipole density correlations. We show that our model produces the correct long range dipole correlations in water (fig:1D). Replicating the calculations from Ref. [27], we perform NVT simulations of a water box with 512 atoms over 2 ns and show the long range dipole correlations function (⟨m~∗(k)m~(k)⟩\langle\tilde{m}^{*}(k)\tilde{m}(k)\rangle, where m~\tilde{m} is the Fourier transform of the molecular dipole density, agree with the long-range models with explicit Ewald summation out to the 2π/L2\pi/L k-space limit. Specifically, we compute the molecular dipole density of water,

m(r)=∑jμjδ(r−rj),(1)\mathbf{m}(\mathbf{r}) = \sum_j \boldsymbol{\mu}_j \delta(\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}_j), \tag*{(1)}

where μj\boldsymbol{\mu}_j is the dipole of water molecule jj and rj\mathbf{r}_j is the position of the water oxygen atom. For each allowed wavevector in reciprocal space, k=2πL(nx,ny,nz)\mathbf{k} = \frac{2\pi}{L}(n_x,n_y,n_z), we take the dipole moment projection,

μj,L=μj⋅k^,k^=k∣k∣,(2)\mu_{j,L} = \boldsymbol{\mu}_j \cdot\hat{\mathbf{k}}, \qquad\hat{\mathbf{k}} = \frac{\mathbf{k}}{\lvert\mathbf{k}\rvert}, \tag*{(2)}

then we take the Fourier transform to compute the dipole density in k-space,

m~L(k)=∑j(μj⋅k^)e−ik⋅rj,(3)\widetilde{m}_L(\mathbf{k}) = \sum_j (\boldsymbol{\mu}_j \cdot\hat{\mathbf{k}})e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}_j}, \tag*{(3)}

where the reported value is averaged over trajectory frames. k-vectors of the same magnitude are averaged together. In order to draw quantitative comparisons with [27], we use the same box size with 512 atoms and length of 24.86 Å which limits the smallest k computed to be 0.25 Å−1^{-1}. We then overlaid Cheng’s results on ours, shifting the spectra by a constant offset along the y-axis to align the first peak.

Rate Estimation with Eyring's Transition State Theory and OPES Flooding

PMF of ions in solution. We show that eSEN-omol correctly captures the long-range behavior of ions in solution. The high dielectric constant of water (ϵ≈78\epsilon\approx78 at room temperature) means that charge interactions are screened rapidly over short distances and the potential of mean force (PMF) of an NaCl ion pair closely agrees with force fields with explicit long range electrostatics terms (Figure 1). In a low dielectric solvent like hexane, we show that eSEN-omol captures electrostatic interactions in the NaCl ion pair out to >20>20 Å ionic separation (at which point the potential is effectively 0 kJ/mol) in excellent agreement with both the continuum limit and classical simulations using the CHARMM-Drude force field (Figure 1).

The classical reference system contained one Na+^+, one Cl−^-, and 900 water molecules in a fixed 30 Å cubic cell at 300 K. Three classical models were considered: Joung–Cheatham ions with rigid TIP3P water, polarizable AMOEBA2018 water and ions, and CHARMM-Drude ions with SWM4-NDP water. Umbrella sampling employed 16 windows spanning Na–Cl separations of 2.0–9.0 Å, with a force constant of 20 kJ mol−1^{-1} Å−2^{-2}. Following 100 ps of restrained equilibration, production lengths were 2 ns, 1 ns, and 0.5 ns per window for JC/TIP3P, AMOEBA2018, and CHARMM-Drude, respectively.

In low-dielectric nn-hexane, the reference system contained one NaCl pair and 691 hexane molecules in a fixed 53.25 Å cubic cell at 300 K. The classical calculation used the polarizable CHARMM-Drude 2023 force field with matching ion and all-atom hexane parameters, PME electrostatics, a 12 Å nonbonded cutoff, and a 10 Å switching distance. Umbrella windows covered separations from 2.5 to 20 Å, using progressively weaker restraints and wider spacing at larger separations; each window included 25 ps of restrained equilibration and 300 ps of production. The eSEN-omol and CHARMM-Drude PMFs show similar distance dependence across the sampled range (Figure 2). Moreover, eSEN-omol’s PMF, fitting the coefficients of an A/r+CA/r + C functional form over 8–18 Å gave an effective dielectric constant of approximately 1.87, consistent with the experimental continuum value of 1.88 for hexane.

All PMFs were reconstructed using BayesWHAM [94], corrected for the radial Jacobian by adding 2kBTln⁡r2k_{\mathrm{B}}T \ln r, and referenced to zero over 8–9 Å in water and 19–20 Å in hexane. Uncertainties were estimated using time-block analyses or moving-block bootstrap reconstructions. The zero value near 20 Å is therefore a chosen free-energy reference, rather than evidence that the physical ion–ion interaction has vanished completely. The short-range CHARMM-Drude water PMF below 3.25 Å was treated as qualitative because of activity of the model’s Drude-particle hard wall.

In Appendix fig:E and fig:F, we provide additional assessments of the performance of eSEN-omol in predicting the structure and dynamics of liquid water and the folding of a small peptide.

Taken together, these results provide support that eSEN-omol is well-suited to protein-scale, condensed phase calculations in bulk water. Despite not having an explicit Columbic energy term commonly found in classical force fields, it accurately captures long range electrostatic interactions over its effective receptive field of reff=24r_{\mathrm{eff}} = 24 Å that is sufficient to capture highly screened charge interactions in water solvent.

Rate Estimation with Eyring’s Transition State Theory and OPES Flooding

To quantify reaction kinetics, we employed transition-state theory (TST) and OPES flooding (OPESf). Within Eyring’s TST, the rate constant associated with an activation free-energy barrier ΔG‡\Delta G^{\ddagger} is given by,

kTST=κkBThexp⁡(−ΔG‡RT),(4)k_{\mathrm{TST}} = \kappa\frac{k_{\mathrm{B}}T}{h} \exp\left(-\frac{\Delta G^{\ddagger}}{RT}\right), \tag*{(4)}

where κ\kappa is the transmission coefficient, here assumed to be κ=1\kappa= 1, kBk_{\mathrm{B}} is Boltzmann’s constant, hh is Planck’s constant, and TT is the temperature. The equilibrium free-energy barriers ΔG‡\Delta G^{\ddagger} obtained from enhanced sampling calculations neglect dynamical recrossings of the transition-state dividing surface. Accordingly, we computed reaction rates using OPESf, which directly samples barrier-crossing events and thereby incorporates dynamical effects beyond the equilibrium TST estimate.

OPESf accelerates rare transitions by progressively flooding the reactant basin while leaving the transition-state region unbiased [95]. A history-dependent bias Vb(s,t)V_b(s,t) is deposited along a collective variable ss, while an excluded region prevents bias deposition beyond a system-specific threshold sexcs_{\mathrm{exc}}. The maximum bias is controlled by the energy cutoff ΔE\Delta E. The parameters ΔE\Delta E and sexcs_{\mathrm{exc}} were selected so as to reduce the effective barrier within the reactant basin while preserving unbiased dynamics in the transition-state region.

Provided that the transition-state region remains unaffected by the bias, the biased first-passage time tft_f can be rescaled to the corresponding unbiased transition time t∗t^* according to,

t∗=tf⟨eβVb(s)⟩U+Vb,(5)t^* = t_f \left\langle e^{\beta V_b(s)} \right\rangle_{U+V_b}, \tag*{(5)}

where β=1/kBT\beta= 1/k_{\mathrm{B}}T, UU is the unbiased potential energy, and the ensemble average defines the acceleration factor associated with the flooding bias [95, 96, 97, 98, 99]. For a rare-event process, the distribution of unbiased transition times is expected to follow a Poisson process with cumulative distribution function,

Pn≥1(t)=1−exp⁡(−tτ),(6)P_{n \ge1}(t) = 1 - \exp\left(-\frac{t}{\tau}\right), \tag*{(6)}

where τ\tau is the characteristic transition time. The reaction rate was obtained as,

kOPESf=1τ,(7)k_{\mathrm{OPESf}} = \frac{1}{\tau}, \tag*{(7)}

by fitting the distribution of t∗t^* values obtained from an ensemble of independent OPESf trajectories. The consistency of the transition-time distribution with a Poisson process was assessed using a two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test [99, 100, 101].

Uncertainties in the OPESf transition times and rate constants were estimated following the procedure described in Ref. [70]. The 95% confidence interval (τl,τu)(\tau_l,\tau_u) for the characteristic transition time was obtained using Kaminsky’s method,

(2∑i=1ntiχ2n2(0.975),2∑i=1ntiχ2n2(0.025)),(8)\left(\frac{2\sum_{i=1}^{n} t_i}{\chi^2_{2n}(0.975)},\frac{2\sum_{i=1}^{n} t_i}{\chi^2_{2n}(0.025)}\right), \tag*{(8)}

where tit_i is the rescaled transition time for the iith trajectory and χ2n2(α)\chi^2_{2n}(\alpha) denotes the α\alpha-quantile of the chi-squared distribution with 2n2n degrees of freedom. A symmetric uncertainty was reported as,

Δτ=τu−τl2.(9)\Delta\tau= \frac{\tau_u-\tau_l}{2}. \tag*{(9)}

Since k=1/τk = 1/\tau, the corresponding confidence limits on the rate are,

kl=1τu,ku=1τl,(10)k_l = \frac{1}{\tau_u}, \qquad k_u = \frac{1}{\tau_l}, \tag*{(10)}

with the reported symmetric uncertainty,

Δk=ku−kl2.(11)\Delta k = \frac{k_u-k_l}{2}. \tag*{(11)}

The OPESf rate constants were converted to effective activation barriers by inverting the Eyring equation,

ΔGeff‡=RTln⁡(kBTh⋅kOPESf),(12)\Delta G_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\ddagger} = RT \ln\left(\frac{k_{\mathrm{B}}T}{h \cdot k_{\mathrm{OPESf}}}\right), \tag*{(12)}

The confidence limits on the effective barrier were obtained as,

ΔGl‡=RTln⁡(kBThku),ΔGu‡=RTln⁡(kBThkl).(13)\Delta G_{\mathrm{l}}^{\ddagger} = RT \ln\left(\frac{k_{\mathrm{B}}T}{h k_{\mathrm{u}}}\right), \qquad\Delta G_{\mathrm{u}}^{\ddagger} = RT \ln\left(\frac{k_{\mathrm{B}}T}{h k_{\mathrm{l}}}\right). \tag*{(13)}

A symmetric uncertainty in the effective activation barrier was then reported as,

Δ(ΔGeff‡)=ΔGu‡−ΔGl‡2=RT2ln⁡(kukl)(14)\Delta\left(\Delta G_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\ddagger}\right) = \frac{\Delta G_{\mathrm{u}}^{\ddagger} - \Delta G_{\mathrm{l}}^{\ddagger}}{2} = \frac{RT}{2}\ln\left(\frac{k_{\mathrm{u}}}{k_{\mathrm{l}}}\right) \tag*{(14)}

such that the OPESf-derived effective barrier is expressed as ΔGeff‡±Δ(ΔGeff‡)\Delta G_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\ddagger} \pm\Delta\left(\Delta G_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\ddagger}\right).

The OPESf parameters employed for the different systems are summarized in Table S2.

SystemCollective variableΔE\Delta E (kJ mol−1^{-1})Product regionEXCLUDED_REGION
CM (Aqueous)CV120CV >0.15> 0.15 nmCV <−0.15< -0.15 nm
CM (Enzyme)CV60CV >0.15> 0.15 nmCV <−0.15< -0.15 nm
NDPKCV1_160CV1>0.4_1 > 0.4 nmCV1<−0.32_1 < -0.32 nm

Table S2. OPESf parameters and product-state definitions employed for the three systems. ΔE\Delta E and EXCLUDED_REGION are PLUMED parameters controlling the bias ceiling and the region in which bias deposition is excluded, respectively. The product region defines the boundary used to identify reactive trajectories.

Chorismate Mutase

Simulation Setup and Details

Initial structures for the full enzyme were obtained from Ray et al. [102], with the protein conformation based on PDB 3ZO8 [36]. For the corresponding aqueous simulations, the system consisted only of the reactive chorismate (CHB) species, with the protein removed and the solute fully solvated in water. In all chorismate mutase simulations, we employed ASE [81] together with eSEN-omol [32]. Prior to the OPES simulations, each system was first energy minimized and equilibrated. For energy minimization, we used a force tolerance of 0.05 eV/Å. We performed a two-stage equilibration, first in the NVT ensemble at T=300T = 300 K, followed by equilibration in the NPT ensemble at T=300T = 300 K and P=1P = 1 bar. We employed a Langevin thermostat during the equilibration and final scale simulations and an isotropic MTKNPT barostat during the NPT equilibration.

Enhanced Sampling Calculations

Following the reaction coordinate used previously for OPES flooding calculations of chorismate mutase [19], the Claisen rearrangement of chorismate to prephenate was described using a single CV defined as CV = d1−d2d_1 - d_2, where d1d_1 is the distance associated with formation of the new C–C bond and d2d_2 is the distance associated with cleavage of the C–O bond (Figure 2). Progression from reactant to product is captured by the concerted decrease in d1d_1 and increase in d2d_2. OPES simulations were performed at 300 K using a bias deposition pace of 500 steps and a bias barrier of 75 kJ mol−1^{-1}, with the adaptive kernel width updated every 1000 steps. Harmonic walls were applied along the reaction coordinate to restrict sampling to the region relevant to the forward reaction, with a lower wall at CV = (−0.05) nm and an upper wall at CV = 0.27 nm. Both walls used a force constant of 5.0×1045.0 \times10^{4} kJ mol−1^{-1} nm−2^{-2}. The same OPES setup, but without the lower wall, was used for the corresponding aqueous-phase reaction, in which the reactive substrate was simulated in explicit solvent without the enzyme.

Convergence of the OPES simulation is assessed in Figure S3. The distances d1d_1, d2d_2, and the CV undergo multiple spontaneous transitions between the reactant and product basins throughout the 1.18 ns trajectory (fig:S3a–fig:S3c), satisfying the multiple-crossing criterion for sampling convergence [41, 103]. The number of deposited OPES kernels plateaus at ∼111 (fig:S3d), indicating that the adaptive bias has ceased to grow and the underlying free-energy landscape is well sampled. The lower and upper harmonic wall biases (LB and UB; fig:S3e–fig:S3f) are activated only transiently, confirming that the OPES bias alone drives barrier crossing and the walls serve exclusively as boundary safeguards. Free-energy surfaces reweighted from five cumulative fractions of the trajectory (20%–100%) converge to a consistent barrier of ∼109\sim109 kJ mol−1^{-1}, with all estimates within ∼3\sim3 kJ mol−1^{-1} of the full-data reference (fig:S3g).

Convergence analysis plots for the OPES metadynamics simulation

Figure S3. Convergence analysis of the OPES metadynamics simulation for chorismate mutase. Time evolution of (a) d1d_1, (b) d2d_2, (c) CV =d1−d2=d_1-d_2, (d) number of deposited OPES kernels, (e) lower harmonic wall bias (LB), (f) upper harmonic wall bias (UB), and (g) free-energy surfaces reweighted from cumulative trajectory fractions of 20%–100% (blue, light to dark) together with the full-data reference (black).

Going beyond equilibrium free energies, we next computed rate constants using OPES flooding (OPESf) [95]. The reweighted first-passage times of ensembles of 15 and 18 independent OPESf trajectories collected, respectively, for the aqueous and enzyme-catalyzed reactions follow Poisson statistics, from which we extracted estimates of the unbiased reaction rates (Section A.4, Figure S7) [45, 70]. In water, we computed a rate constant of kwater=(9.01±4.53)×10−9k_{\mathrm{water}}=(9.01 \pm4.53)\times10^{-9} s−1^{-1} corresponding to an effective activation free energy of Eawater=(119.69±1.28)E_a^{\mathrm{water}}=(119.69 \pm1.28) kJ mol−1^{-1} (Figure S7). In the enzyme, the calculated rate constant increases to kenzyme=(0.26±0.12)k_{\mathrm{enzyme}}=(0.26 \pm0.12) s−1^{-1} with a corresponding effective activation free energy of Eaenzyme=(76.77±1.16)E_a^{\mathrm{enzyme}}=(76.77 \pm1.16) kJ mol−1^{-1}. The calculated kinetic activation energies are in excellent agreement with the free energy barriers within ∼1.5\sim1.5 kJ mol−1^{-1}, providing strong support for the consistency of the independent thermodynamic and kinetic barrier height estimations. Our kinetic calculations predict a kenzyme/kwater=3.2×107k_{\mathrm{enzyme}}/k_{\mathrm{water}}=3.2\times10^{7} acceleration of the enzyme-catalyzed reaction relative to aqueous solution, in good agreement with the experimentally reported accelerations of 10610^{6} to 10710^{7}-fold [37].

Structural Model Variation

While the prepared enzyme-substrate structures used in Refs. [19, 44] were not provided, we note that when we attempted to dock chorismate into the PDB: 2CHT [104] crystal structure, we initially obtained an improperly docked system in which the reaction center is largely solvent exposed and the substrate is only stabilized by a single hydrogen bond (Figure S6). Our eSEN-omol OPESf calculations for this structure yield a similarly elevated free energy barrier of 108 kJ mol−1^{-1} (Figure S5). In contrast, the higher-resolution PDB: 3ZO8 [36] structure resulted in a more stably docked substrate, featuring a two-hydrogen-bonded substrate conformation and a substantially lower activation barrier. This result also highlights that while studies of reaction dynamics are now readily feasible with MLIPs, an accurate initial structural model is still a vital first step.

Free-energy surfaces for the reaction in two fully solvated enzyme

Figure S5. Free-energy surfaces for the reaction in two fully solvated enzyme constructed with PDB ID: 3ZO8 (reported in main text) and 2CHT, computed with OPES along the collective variable CV = d1−d2d_1 - d_2.

H-bonding distance distributions and representative molecular visualizations

Figure S6. H-bonding distance distributions between O atoms in the CHB residue and H atoms in the neighboring ARG residues. (a) Distributions between CHB O11 - ARG H22 and CHB O15 - ARG HE in PDB: 3ZO8, with a representative molecular visualization in (b). (c) Distributions between CHB O1 - ARG H21 and CHB O2 - ARG H12 in 2CHT, with a representative molecular visualization in (d).

PETase

Simulation Setup and Details

Initial structures for both the acylation and deacylation simulations were obtained from Burgin et al. [49]. The deacylation simulations were initiated from the same acyl-enzyme intermediate (AEI) structure used in Burgin et al. [49]. In all the PETase simulations, we employed ASE [81] together with eSEN-omol [32]. Prior to the WTMetaD simulations, each system was first energy minimized and equilibrated. For energy minimization, we used a force tolerance of 0.05 eV/A˚0.05\ \mathrm{eV}/\text{\AA}. We performed a two-stage equilibration to gradually bring the system to the target temperature and density. In the first stage, the system was equilibrated in the NVT ensemble at T=310 KT = 310\ \mathrm{K}. Subsequently, the system was equilibrated in the NPT ensemble at T=310 KT = 310\ \mathrm{K} and P=1 barP = 1\ \mathrm{bar}. We employed the Langevin thermostat and IsotropicMTKNPT barostat during the equilibration and final scale simulations.

Reaction Coordinates

For all simulations in the PETase section, we used identical Reaction Coordinates (RCs) reported by Burgin et al. [49] for both the acylation and deacylation reactions. The acylation reaction coordinate (RCacylation\mathrm{RC}_{\mathrm{acylation}}) is a linear combination of three collective variables (CV1a, CV2a, CV3a). CV1a and CV2a correspond to the distance differences dSER160:H−PET:O−dSER160:O−PET:Cd_{\mathrm{SER160:H-PET:O}} - d_{\mathrm{SER160:O-PET:C}} and dSER160:O−PET:C−dPET:C−PET:Od_{\mathrm{SER160:O-PET:C}} - d_{\mathrm{PET:C-PET:O}}, respectively. CV3a corresponds to the angle formed by SER160 H–PET ether O–BHET C. Similarly, the deacylation reaction coordinate (RCdeacylation\mathrm{RC}_{\mathrm{deacylation}}) is a linear combination of three collective variables (CV1d, CV2d, CV3d). CV1d, CV2d, and CV3d correspond to the distance differences dSER160:O−Wat:H−dWat:H−Wat:Od_{\mathrm{SER160:O-Wat:H}} - d_{\mathrm{Wat:H-Wat:O}}, dSER160:O−MHET:C−dMHET:C−Wat:Od_{\mathrm{SER160:O-MHET:C}} - d_{\mathrm{MHET:C-Wat:O}}, and dMHET:C−Wat:O−dWat:O−Wat:Hd_{\mathrm{MHET:C-Wat:O}} - d_{\mathrm{Wat:O-Wat:H}}, respectively. These reaction coordinates collectively describe the proton-transfer, nucleophilic attack, and bond-breaking/bond-forming events during the acylation and deacylation reactions. The RCs are:

RCacylation=4.18−2.32∗CV1a−2.59∗CV2a−0.0119∗CV3aRCdeacylation=1.55−1.42∗CV1d+1.39∗CV2d−0.590∗CV3d\mathrm{RC}_{\mathrm{acylation}} = 4.18 - 2.32 \ast\mathrm{CV1a} - 2.59 \ast\mathrm{CV2a} - 0.0119 \ast\mathrm{CV3a} \\ \mathrm{RC}_{\mathrm{deacylation}} = 1.55 - 1.42 \ast\mathrm{CV1d} + 1.39 \ast\mathrm{CV2d} - 0.590 \ast\mathrm{CV3d}

Replica Exchange Umbrella Sampling

Replica Exchange Umbrella Sampling

For mapping the free energy surface of the full reaction during both acylation and deacylation, we used replica exchange umbrella sampling (REUS) [58]. In this variant of umbrella sampling (US) [69], exchange of configurations between neighboring windows is allowed through a Metropolis criterion to improve convergence and sampling of orthogonal degrees of freedom. In particular, for a given window ii, assuming a 1D CV q(x)q(x), the total energy of the system in REUS is described with Hi(x,p)=U(x)+K(p)+wi(q(x))H_i(x,p) = U(x) + K(p) + w_i(q(x)) where wi(q)=12ki(q−ci)2w_i(q) = \frac{1}{2}k_i(q-c_i)^2 represents a harmonic bias potential added to restrain and sample the system near the window center cic_i with a force constant of kik_i. Hi(x,p)H_i(x,p), U(x)U(x), and K(p)K(p) represent the Hamiltonian, potential energy, and kinetic energy of the system, respectively. qq and pp refer to the configuration and momentum of the system, respectively. The configurations and momenta from neighboring windows ii and jj in REUS are exchanged every 1000 simulation steps by using the Metropolis criteria with acceptance probability Pacc=min⁡[1,exp⁡(βδ)]P_{\mathrm{acc}} = \min[1,\exp(\beta\delta)] where δ=wi(qi)+wj(qj)−wi(qj)−wj(qi)\delta= w_i(q_i) + w_j(q_j) - w_i(q_j) - w_j(q_i) and β=1kBT\beta= \frac{1}{k_{\mathrm{B}}T}. When δ≥0\delta\ge0, the swap lowers the overall energy and is always accepted.

We obtain the starting configurations for each window by computing an approximate profile of the full free energy surface using OPES MetaD [40] simulation by patching ASE with PLUMED [83]. In Figure S9 and Figure S10, we show the resulting histograms of RCacylationRC_{\mathrm{acylation}} and RCdeacylationRC_{\mathrm{deacylation}} in each window during the acylation and deacylation REUS runs, respectively. We adjusted window centers (cic_i) and the value of spring force constant (kik_i) as needed to restrain the system in a given window and improve the overlap of the biased histograms of the neighboring windows in both RCacylationRC_{\mathrm{acylation}} and RCdeacylationRC_{\mathrm{deacylation}} as shown in Table S3 and Table S4, respectively. These tables also show the length of the simulation performed in each window. We compute the free energy profiles from the resulting biased distributions of RCacylationRC_{\mathrm{acylation}} and RCdeacylationRC_{\mathrm{deacylation}} in each window using BayesWHAM [94, 106]. We detail the key features on the free energy surfaces in Table S5. The total stable sampling time was ∼400\sim400 ps per window, total about 50 ns of simulation time. The samples were divided into 6 even blocks to obtain measurement errors.

BayesWHAM free-energy profile and probability density histograms for PETase acylation

Figure S9. BayesWHAM free-energy profile for PETase acylation using the curated 52-window connected umbrella set. The shaded band is the pointwise 95% posterior interval.

BayesWHAM free-energy profile for PETase deacylation

Figure S10. BayesWHAM free-energy profile for PETase deacylation using the curated 50-window connected umbrella set. The shaded band is the pointwise 95% posterior interval.

IDCenterkkIDCenterkkIDCenterkk
0-102071-0.1575354.520
1-9.52072-0.115036520
2-92073-0.05250375.520
3-8.52069030038620
4-820740.05250396.520
5-7.520750.115040720
6-720760.1575517100
7-6.520770.240527.25100
8-620250.2520537.375100
9-5.520260.520547.5100
10-520790.52540557.625100
11-4.520800.5575567.75100
12-420810.6150577.875100
13-3.520780.625300588100
14-320820.65150598.125100
15-2.520830.775608.25100
16-220840.72540688.375100
17-1.7520270.7520618.5100
18-1.52028120628.75100
19-1.2520291.520639100
20-12030220649.25100
21-0.7520312.520659.5100
22-0.52032320669.75100
23-0.2520333.5206710100
70-0.24034420

Table S3. Umbrella centers, force constants, for the curated 74-window WT acylation analysis. Total 5.5M samples in 30 ns of sampling, ∼400 ps per window.

IDCenterkkIDCenterkkIDCenterkk
2-72059-1.37510030420
3-6.52060-1.25100314.520
4-62061-1.125100494.5100
5-5.52044-1100504.625100
6-52045-0.9375100514.75100
7-4.52046-0.875100524.875100
8-42047-0.812510032520
9-3.52020-0.7520535100
10-32048-0.75100335.520
11-2.752021-0.520345.7520
12-2.5202202035620
13-2.2520230.520366.520
14-2202412037720
54-2100251.520387.520
55-1.8751002622039820
56-1.75100272.520408.520
57-1.62510028320
58-1.5100293.520

Table S4. Umbrella centers, force constants, for the curated 52-window WT acylation analysis. Total 3.7M samples in 21 ns of sampling, ∼400 ps per window.

Well Tempered Metadynamics

In addition to REUS, we performed experiments with well-tempered metadynamics to validate our results (Figure S11 and Figure S12). We found barrier values within error of our REUS measurements. Because WT MetaD was harder to converge for such a long RC trajectory, we added soft harmonic wall potentials along the reaction coordinate in both the acylation and deacylation simulations to limit the sampling of only the first transition state. For the acylation simulations, lower and upper walls were placed at RCacylation=(−11.0)RC_{\mathrm{acylation}} = (-11.0) and 2.2, respectively, with a force constant of 200 kJ mol−1^{-1}. Similarly, for the deacylation simulations, lower and upper walls were applied at RCdeacylation=(−10.0)RC_{\mathrm{deacylation}} = (-10.0) and 2.0, respectively, using the same force constant. In addition, an upper harmonic wall was applied to the distance between the attacking water oxygen atom and the substrate carbonyl carbon (dWat:O−MHET:Cd_{\mathrm{Wat:O-MHET:C}}) at 0.35 nm with a force constant of 2000 kJ mol−1^{-1} to prevent the catalytic water molecule from diffusing away from the active site during the deacylation simulations. We set the initial Gaussian hill height to 4 kJ mol−1^{-1} and the bias factor to 20. The bias was deposited every 500 steps. WTMetaD simulations were performed until convergence, which happened within 5 ns for both the acylation and deacylation reactions.

Free energy profiles for acylation from WT REUS and WT MetaD

Figure S11. For acylation, we show the well-tempered metadynamics runs result in the first barrier height within error of REUS runs.

Free energy profiles for WT REUS, WT MetaD, and S214H MetaD

Figure S12. For deacylation, we show the well-tempered metadynamics runs result in the first barrier height within error of REUS runs. In addition, we studied a S214H point mutation and found evidence that raises the barrier height, consistent with the hypothesis that the Serine stabilizes the TRP185 wobbling and can increase reactivity. See Section C.5.

Figure S13 shows the time evolution of the bias potential together with the sampling of all collective variables constituting RCacylationRC_{\mathrm{acylation}}. The accumulated bias plateaued within ∼\sim5 ns, indicating convergence of the WTMetaD simulation. Figure S14 shows the corresponding convergence analysis for the deacylation simulations of both the wild-type and S214H mutant systems (Section C.5). In both cases, the accumulated bias plateaued within ∼\sim5 ns, indicating convergence of the WTMetaD simulations. Furthermore, in both the acylation and deacylation simulations, the constituent CVs were well sampled throughout the region of interest.

Convergence analysis plots for the WTMetaD simulation of the acylation reaction

Figure S13. Convergence analysis of the WTMetaD simulation for the acylation reaction. Time evolution of (a) dSER160:HG1−O16d_{\mathrm{SER160:HG1-O16}}, (b) dSER160:OG−HG1d_{\mathrm{SER160:OG-HG1}}, (c) dSER160:OG−C30d_{\mathrm{SER160:OG-C30}}, (d) dC30−O16d_{\mathrm{C30-O16}}, (e) CV1a, (f) CV2a, (g) CV3, (h) RCacylationRC_{\mathrm{acylation}}, (i) the lower harmonic wall bias (LB), (j) the upper harmonic wall bias (UB), and (k) the accumulated WTMetaD bias.

Convergence analysis of the WTMetaD simulations for the deacylation reaction

Figure S14. Convergence analysis of the WTMetaD simulations for the deacylation reaction. Time evolution of (a) dSER160:O−Wat:Hd_{\mathrm{SER160:O-Wat:H}}, (b) dWat:H−Wat:Od_{\mathrm{Wat:H-Wat:O}}, (c) dSER160:O−MHET:Cd_{\mathrm{SER160:O-MHET:C}}, (d) dMHET:C−Wat:Od_{\mathrm{MHET:C-Wat:O}}, (e) CV1d, (f) CV2d, (g) CV3d, (h) RCdeacylationRC_{\mathrm{deacylation}}, (i) the lower harmonic wall bias (LB), (j) the upper harmonic wall bias (UB), (k) the water restraint bias, and (l) the accumulated WTMetaD bias potential for the wild-type (green) and S214H mutant (black) simulations.

Altered Aromatic Interactions in the S214H Mutant During the Deacylation Reaction

We analyzed the stacking distance and stacking angle between TRP185 and the aromatic ring of MHET (mono(2-hydroxyethyl) terephthalate) together with the TRP185 side-chain torsion angle (C−Cα−Cβ−CγC - C_{\alpha} - C_{\beta} - C_{\gamma}). By analyzing simulations of a S214H mutant, we found that the mutation altered the aromatic interactions of TRP185 with MHET (Figure S15), which we hypothesize to be responsible for the increased stability of the AEI, resulting in higher deacylation activation barrier and the experimentally-observed reduced catalytic activity [107]. Our analysis (Figure S15) indicates that the S214H mutant alters the conformational dynamics of TRP185 and potentially strengthens its stacking interactions with MHET, which forms the AEI with SER160. We therefore hypothesize that the altered aromatic interactions in the S214H mutant, reflected by the shorter TRP185–MHET distance suggests that TRP185 adopts conformations that favor π\pi-stacking with the aromatic ring of MHET over the imidazole ring of HIS214. This contrasts with the WT, where SER185 lacks an aromatic side chain and therefore does not introduce such a competition for aromatic interactions with TRP185. We propose that these altered aromatic interactions are responsible for the increased stability of the AEI, resulting in higher deacylation activation barrier and are consistent with the experimentally-observed reduction in catalytic activity [107].

Analysis of the TRP156–substrate stacking interaction from the WTMetaD deacylation simulations, with time-evolution plots, free-energy profiles, and representative molecular snapshots

Figure S15. Analysis of the TRP156–substrate stacking interaction from the WTMetaD deacylation simulations. (a) Time evolution of the stacking angle for the wild-type (green) and S214H mutant (black) systems. (b) Free-energy profile as a function of the stacking angle. (c) Time evolution of the stacking distance for the wild-type and S214H mutant systems. (d) Free-energy profile as a function of the stacking distance. (e) Time evolution of the TRP156 C−Cα−Cβ−CγC-C_{\alpha}-C_{\beta}-C_{\gamma} torsion angle for the wild-type and S214H mutant systems. (f) Free-energy profile as a function of the TRP156 C−Cα−Cβ−CγC-C_{\alpha}-C_{\beta}-C_{\gamma} torsion angle. The free-energy profiles were obtained by reweighting the converged WTMetaD bias. (g,h) Representative snapshots from the S214H mutant simulation at stacking angles of 89.96∘89.96^\circ and 150.23∘150.23^\circ, respectively. The stacking angle is defined as the angle between the normal vectors of the TRP156 indole ring and the substrate aromatic ring, where the normal vectors are computed from the cross products of two vectors spanning each aromatic ring. The stacking distance is defined as the distance between the centroids of the TRP156 indole ring and the substrate aromatic ring.

FES Along Simpler CVs

To test the robustness of our results to the choice of reaction coordinate, we projected the configurations sampled during the WTMetaD simulations onto the CVs employed by Guo et al. [51] as an alternative, simpler CVs with which to characterize the deacylation reaction (Figure S16). Under these CVs, we predict an acylation free energy barrier of (71.5±5.471.5 \pm5.4) kJ mol−1^{-1} and a deacylation free energy barrier of (66.4±2.466.4 \pm2.4) kJ mol−1^{-1}, which are in reasonable agreement of the values of (59.4±0.859.4 \pm0.8) kJ mol−1^{-1} and (68.2±0.468.2 \pm0.4) kJ mol−1^{-1} reported by Guo et al. using QM/MM calculations in which the QM region is treated at a M06-2X/6-31G(d) level of theory [51].

Free-energy surfaces for acylation and deacylation

Figure S16. Figure S16 Free-energy surfaces obtained by projecting the WTMetaD trajectories onto the collective variables employed by Guo et al. [51]. (a) Acylation free-energy surface as a function of the collective variable dOG−HG1−dOG−C30d_{\mathrm{OG-HG1}} - d_{\mathrm{OG-C30}}, representing the difference between the SER160 OG−HG1\mathrm{O_G-H_{G1}} and SER160 OG−C30\mathrm{O_G-C30} distances. (b) Deacylation free-energy surface as a function of the collective variable dH2−O−dC30−Od_{\mathrm{H2-O}} - d_{\mathrm{C30-O}}, representing the difference between the H2−O\mathrm{H_2-O} and C30−O\mathrm{C_{30}-O} distances.

NDPK

Simulation Background

A conserved phosphohistidine intermediate forms within this active site, where divalent cation (typically Mg2+\mathrm{Mg}^{2+}) coordinates the nucleotide phosphates, balancing their negative charge and organizing the phosphoryl-transfer geometry. As such, accurate modeling of the dephosphorylation half-reaction is sensitive to the local electronic structure, cation coordination, and the local solvent context. The phosphoryl transfer step has proven difficult to model with conventional methods. Cluster models of the active site typically neglect the surrounding protein, ions, and solvent [11].

Simulation Setup and Details

Structurally, NDPK is a compact phosphoryl-transfer enzyme (∼150\sim150 amino acids per subunit) that assembles into a homohexamer, with each subunit containing a conserved catalytic histidine. NDPK enables the conversion of ATP to ADP, preceding phosphoryl transfer to an incoming nucleoside diphosphate (NDP). High-resolution crystal structures of transition-state-like complexes such as PDB 1KDN have captured phosphoenzyme and transition-state analog geometries, providing unusually direct structural constraints on the catalytic mechanism. In PDB 1KDN, Dictyostelium NDPK is captured with Mg–ADP and aluminum fluoride, where AlF3\mathrm{AlF}_{3} mimics the transferring phosphoryl group [60]. The AlF3\mathrm{AlF}_{3} moiety adopts a trigonal-planar arrangement that bridges the leaving-group oxygen of ADP (the β\beta-phosphate O7) and the Nδ\delta of the catalytic histidine (HIS122), consistent with partial bonding to both nucleophile and the leaving group in an in-line SN2\mathrm{S_N2}-like transition state.

The initial simulation box was prepared using CHARMM-GUI input generator [108] by placing one unit of NDPK hexamer with ATP docked inside the reactive pocket from 1KDN [109] crystal structure within a cubic box with an edge length of 7 nm edge. We employed periodic boundary conditions in all dimensions. The residues were protonated for a pH of 7 except for HIS122 where we enforced a doubly-protonated state as suggested by Hutter and Helms [11]. The system was then solvated in water to a density of 1 g/cm3\mathrm{cm}^{3}. The total charge of the system was neutralized by adding a potassium ion. To generate the reactant state, consisting of the ATP substrate docked in the NDPK binding pocket, the AlF3\mathrm{AlF}_{3} residue in 1KDN structure was replaced by a PO3\mathrm{PO}_{3} residue and the system was energy minimized using the L-BFGS algorithm [110] until the maximum force was below 0.05 eV/Å to eliminate high-energy overlaps. Equilibration was first performed for 100 ps in the NVT ensemble at 300 K using a Langevin thermostat with a friction constant of 1 ps−1\mathrm{ps}^{-1}. Initial velocities were assigned from a Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution at 300 K. The classical equations of motion were integrated using a 0.5 fs time step. This was followed by 300 ps of equilibration in the NPT ensemble at 300 K and 1 bar using the isotropic Martyna-Tobias-Klein integrator [111] with a temperature coupling time constant of 0.1 ps and a pressure coupling time constant of 1 ps. Final scale runs were conducted in the NVT ensemble at 300 K employing a Langevin integrator with a friction constant of 1 ps−1\mathrm{ps}^{-1}. All MD simulations were conducted on 64 NVIDIA A-100 GPUs, yielding a performance of ∼1\sim1 ns/day.

In our simulations, the bound ATP adopts hydrogen-bonding contacts to TYR56, ARG92, THR98, and ASN119 in agreement with 1KDN crystal structure[109] and prior semi-empirical results [11], and the Mg2+\mathrm{Mg}^{2+} ion spontaneously adopts octahedral hexacoordination with the three phosphoryl groups of ATP, two water molecules, and GLU58 (fig:4B). This geometry emerges without ion-specific empirical corrections. In contrast, MM approaches often fail to reproduce the Mg2+\mathrm{Mg}^{2+} solvation free energy and first-shell geometry [112, 113] and QM/MM simulations require a priori specification of the residues, solvent molecules, and ions participating in the QM region.

Enhanced Sampling Calculations

Enhanced sampling of the phosphoryl transfer reaction was conducted to study the reaction mechanism and estimate characteristic transition times. To understand the thermodynamics and the mechanism of the phosphotransfer reaction, we used two collective variables (CVs) which track nucleophilic attack of HIS and the proton transfer from the doubly-protonated HIS to the phosphoryl group. Both CVs were constructed using coordination numbers [114]. We define the coordination number SS between the atom groups AA and BB as,

S(n,m,r0,d0)=∑i∈A∑j∈Bf(rij;n,m,r0,d0),(15)S(n,m,r_0,d_0)=\sum_{i\in A}\sum_{j\in B}f(r_{ij};n,m,r_0,d_0), \tag*{(15)}

where,

f(rij;n,m,r0,d0)=1−[(rij−d0)/r0]n1−[(rij−d0)/r0]m.(16)f(r_{ij};n,m,r_0,d_0)=\frac{1-\left[(r_{ij}-d_0)/r_0\right]^n}{1-\left[(r_{ij}-d_0)/r_0\right]^m}. \tag*{(16)}

In the above definition, d0d_0 is the minimum inter-particle distance, r0r_0 is the midpoint of the switching function curve, and nn and mm are non-negative numbers which control the steepness of the switching function curve. We constructed the first collective variable, CV1_1, to track the phosphoryl transfer process as,

CV1=SP−N(6,12,0.18,0.0)−SP−O(6,12,0.18,0.0),(17)\mathrm{CV}_1=S_{\mathrm{P-N}}(6,12,0.18,0.0)-S_{\mathrm{P-O}}(6,12,0.18,0.0), \tag*{(17)}

where SP−NS_{\mathrm{P-N}} represents the coordination number of γ\gamma-P of the phosphoryl group with the acceptor Nδ\delta on HIS and SP−OS_{\mathrm{P-O}} refers to the coordination number of γ\gamma-P with all the oxygen atoms on the β\beta-phosphate groups of ADP. Similarly, the second collective variable CV2_2 tracks the proton hopping process from HIS to the transferring γ\gamma-phosphoryl group,

CV2=SO−H(6,12,0.12,0.0)−SN−H(6,12,0.12,0.0),(18)\mathrm{CV}_2=S_{\mathrm{O-H}}(6,12,0.12,0.0)-S_{\mathrm{N-H}}(6,12,0.12,0.0), \tag*{(18)}

where SO−HS_{\mathrm{O-H}} corresponds to the coordination number of the proton on Nδ\delta of HIS with all oxygen atoms on the transferring γ\gamma-phosphoryl group, and SN−HS_{\mathrm{N-H}} represents the coordination number of the proton with the Nδ\delta atom on HIS. Note that the inclusion of all oxygen atom in the β\beta-phosphate groups of ADP in SP−OS_{\mathrm{P-O}} and all oxygen atom in the transferring γ\gamma-phosphoryl group in SO−HS_{\mathrm{O-H}} automatically includes all degenerate states.

The CVs defined above were used in a 2D WTMetaD simulation to study the free-energy landscape of the phosphotransfer reaction and extract mechanistic insight. During the WTMetaD simulations, A flat-bottom restraints was applied to the sum of CV1_1 and CV2_2 to prevent the proton from migrating away from the reaction site via water-mediated hops. A one-sided flat-bottom restraint was imposed between the center of mass of ATP and HIS122 to prevent the ATP substrate from leaving the active site. In practice, ATP remained docked throughout all calculations and the restraint never exerted a restoring force. A convergence assessment of the WTMetaD calculations is presented in Figure S18.

Trajectories, effective deposition rate, free-energy profiles, and reaction free-energy estimates

Figure S18. (A) Trajectories of the phosphoryl-transfer (CV1_1) and proton-transfer (CV2_2) coordinates during the WTMetaD simulation (first 20% is not shown). Dashed lines mark the basin thresholds used to define transitions. The system diffuses between the reactant and product basins, giving 28 and 84 crossings in CV1_1 and CV2_2, respectively. Discarding rapid (< 5 ps) recrossings of the dividing surface, leaves 7 and 12 independent basin exchanges. (B) Effective well-tempered deposition rate along the trajectory, heff=H0exp⁡[−V(s)/kBT(γ−1)]h_{\mathrm{eff}} = H_0 \exp[-V(s)/k_{\mathrm{B}}T(\gamma- 1)] with kBT(γ−1)=97.27k_{\mathrm{B}}T(\gamma- 1) = 97.27 kJ/mol, shown raw (grey) and as a 20 ps running average (red); the dashed line is the initial hill height H0=5H_0 = 5 kJ/mol. Over the course of the simulation heffh_{\mathrm{eff}} is stationary at 0.8-1.1 kJ/mol, averaging 0.96 kJ/mol or 19% of H0H_0. The bias had therefore essentially stopped growing, which justifies using the final, static bias as the reweighting potential. (C-D) Free energy along each coordinate computed from cumulative windows of increasing length, all beginning at 334 ps ((C): CV1_1, (D): CV2_2, conditioned on CV1<0_1 < 0 as used for marginalization reported in Section D.4, dotted lines mark the reference states). Both profiles are stationary after approximately 500 ps of data are included. (E) Over the three longest windows the reaction free energy varies by 0.8 kJ/mol (CV1_1) and 0.3 kJ/mol (CV2_2) and the barrier by 1.3 and 3.7 kJ/mol respectively. Cumulative rather than disjoint windows are used because individual basin residences last 28-285 ps, so a disjoint window can lie entirely within one basin and contain too few frames in the other to give a meaningful free-energy difference.

We further performed MD simulations with umbrella sampling along the phosphoryl transfer pathway using CV1_1 and along the proton transfer pathway using CV2_2 to improve the estimate of the location and height of the barrier along each path. The results of the MD simulations with umbrella sampling were reweighted using the BayesWHAM algorithm [94] to calculate the potential of mean force (PMF) curve along CV1_1 and CV2_2 and their relative free energy. For the umbrella sampling runs on CV1_1, we use harmonic restraints with a force constant of 150.0 kJ mol−1^{-1} to keep CV2_2 at 0.75. Umbrellas were placed along the phosphoryl-transfer coordinate and their force constants were tuned such that there was sufficient overlap between neighboring windows and the drift from each window was within acceptable range. Table S6 shows the centers and force constants of the final umbrella setup. The samples collected from each window were then reweighted using the BayesWHAM algorithm [94] to get the relative free energy of the windows and calculate the final PMF. A convergence assessment of these US calculations is presented in Figure S19. We repeated this process with umbrellas along CV2\mathrm{CV}_2, using harmonic restraints with a force constant of 150.0 kJ mol−1150.0\ \mathrm{kJ\,mol^{-1}} to keep CV1\mathrm{CV}_1 at (−0.65)(-0.65), to get an estimate of the proton hopping barrier along the H transfer coordinate. Table S7 shows the centers and force constants of the final umbrella setup. Similar to before, the samples collected from each window were then reweighted using the BayesWHAM algorithm [94] to get the relative free energy of the windows and calculate the final PMF. A convergence assessment of these US calculations is presented in Figure S20.

IndexCenterForce const. (kJ mol−1^{-1})
1-0.751000.00
2-0.601000.00
3-0.451000.00
4-0.352000.00
5-0.352750.00
6-0.301000.00
7-0.252500.00
8-0.151000.00
90.001000.00
100.002000.00
110.151000.00
120.252000.00
130.301000.00
140.451000.00
150.601000.00

Table S6. Details of the umbrellas used for the phosphoryl transfer pathway.

IndexCenterForce const. (kJ mol−1^{-1})
1-0.7501000.00
2-0.5001000.00
3-0.4252000.00
4-0.2501000.00
5-0.1502000.00
60.0001000.00
70.1503000.00
80.2503000.00
90.3753000.00
100.5003000.00

Table S7. Summary of the Umbrellas used for the proton transfer pathway.

Histograms and PMFs for CV1

Figure S19. (A) The histogram of samples collected under each window for CV1_1 shows sufficient overlap. (B) The PMFs calculated by splitting the US trajectories into five contiguous blocks are in good agreement.

Histograms and PMFs for CV2

Figure S20. (A) The histogram of samples collected under each window for CV2_2 shows sufficient overlap. (B) The PMFs calculated by splitting the US trajectories into five contiguous blocks are in good agreement.

Marginalization of the Reweighted WTMetaD Samples

To compare the FES obtained from the 2D WTMetaD run with the umbrella sampling results, we marginalized the 2D surface along CV1_1 and CV2_2. Figure S21 shows the marginalized PMFs superimposed on the umbrella sampling results. The location and height of the barriers along both CVs are in good agreement. We observe that the product of the H transfer reaction along CV2_2 is at a higher free energy from the umbrella sampling results. We attribute this to the difference between the how the product region is constrained between the two PMFs: in the umbrella sampling runs, a restraint on the P-O bond prevents the formation of the final product, whereas in the marginalized results the samples collect for CV1>(−0.3)_1 > (-0.3) are excluded to isolate the destabilizing effect of the transition state as well as the final product along CV1_1. Note that the PMF from US shown here is calculated without block-averaging.

Cumulative Distribution of Reweighted OPESf Simulations for NDPK

We applied OPESf to the rate limiting phosphoryl transfer step to calculate rate constants and effective activation energies using Eyring transition-state theory (Figure 4E, Section A.4) [45, 70]. Reweighted first-passage times from 19 independent OPESf trajectories follow Poisson statistics, yielding a predicted rate constant of kOPESf=(0.043±0.019) s−1k_{\mathrm{OPESf}} = (0.043 \pm0.019)\ \mathrm{s}^{-1} with a corresponding apparent effective activation free energy of EaOPESf=(81.32±1.13) kJ mol−1E_{\mathrm{a}}^{\mathrm{OPESf}} = (81.32 \pm1.13)\ \mathrm{kJ}\ \mathrm{mol}^{-1} (Figure S22).

Water Structure and Dynamics

We evaluated eSEN-omol’s capabilities in predicting the temperature dependence of the structural, thermodynamic, and kinetic properties of bulk water. An initial box of water containing 216 molecules was generated using GROMACS [115] and geometrically relaxed with the SPC/E water model [116]. Molecular dynamics simulations with eSEN-omol were conducted using the integrators implemented in ASE [81]. All calculations were performed at neutral charge and in the singlet spin state.

We first computed radial distribution functions (RDFs) as a function of temperature to assess the structural behavior of eSEN-omol for liquid water. These RDFs were calculated from equilibrated trajectories of 250 ps in the NVT ensemble using the Langevin integrator with a low friction coefficient of 0.001 fs−10.001\ \mathrm{fs}^{-1} and a time step of 0.5 fs0.5\ \mathrm{fs}, employing the eSEN-omol model. Twelve independent simulations were performed at temperatures ranging from 248 K to 368 K. The resulting RDFs were compared against experimental X-ray diffraction measurements for which we observe very good agreement [117, 118] (Figure S23).

Temperature dependence of the oxygen-oxygen RDF of liquid water, with solid lines for eSEN-omol and dashed lines for Experiment; curves labeled 248 K (254 K), 258 K (254 K), 268 K (268 K), 278 K (277 K), 288 K (284 K), 298 K (295 K), 308 K (307 K), 318 K (324 K), 328 K (324 K), 338 K (334 K), 348 K (343 K), and 368 K (366 K)

Figure S23. Temperature dependence of the oxygen-oxygen RDF of liquid water predicted by classical NVT simulations with eSEN-omol compared with the corresponding results derived from X-ray diffraction measurements [117, 118]. The temperatures at which the experimental measurements were performed are given in parentheses.

We next used these simulation trajectories to evaluate the self-diffusion coefficient, DsD_{\mathrm{s}}, from the mean-squared displacement (MSD) using the Einstein relation, Ds=lim⁡t→∞∣r(t)−r(0)∣26tD_{\mathrm{s}} = \lim_{t \to\infty} \frac{\left\lvert\mathbf{r}(t)-\mathbf{r}(0)\right\rvert^{2}}{6t},

where the MSD was computed independently for each oxygen atom and averaged over all 216 atoms, with a linear fit applied in the diffusive regime (lag times 2–50 ps). It is well known that simulations employing periodic boundary conditions systematically underestimate the self-diffusion coefficient because a molecule couples hydrodynamically to its own periodic images through the long-ranged Oseen flow field [119]. We applied the Yeh–Hummer finite-size correction, D∞=DPBC+kBTξ6πηLD_{\infty} = D_{\mathrm{PBC}} + \frac{k_{\mathrm{B}}T\xi}{6\pi\eta L},

where ξ=2.837297\xi= 2.837297 is a dimensionless geometric constant for a cubic periodic box, LL is the box side length, and η\eta is the shear viscosity of water. Reference viscosity values were taken from the IAPWS international formulation for T≥273T \ge273 K [120] and from microfluidic Brownian-motion measurements in the supercooled regime for T<273T < 273 K [121]. The corrected diffusivities predicted by eSEN-omol are in excellent agreement with MB-pol [122] and experimental measurements [123, 124, 125, 126] (Figure S24).

Self-diffusion coefficient of liquid water as a function of temperature, comparing MB-pol, experiment, and eSEN-omol

Figure S24. Self-diffusion coefficient of liquid water computed by eSEN-omol, MB-pol [122] and experimental measurements [123, 124, 125, 126].

Finally, we evaluated the density of liquid water at 300 K and 1 atm pressure. We generated boxes of water with TIP3P geometry using Open-MM (1k and 10k waters) and ran isotropic Martyna–Tobias–Klein [111] with a temperature damping of 100 fs and a pressure damping of 1000 fs for 200 ps each with 0.5 fs time steps. eSEN-omol, like all other OMol-trained models, are known to have an elevated water density due to the neglect of many-body dispersion in the VV10 functional used as part of the ωB97M-V functional in OMol25 [28, 127, 128]. We show that we can correct this problem by fine-tuning eSEN-omol with a similar functional where 3-body dispersion is included. The OMol-4M subset [28] was recomputed at ωB97M-D4, using the D4 parameters of Friede et al. [129] (this is known as “ωB97M-D4rev” in ORCA [130] and includes the 3-body ATM correction). Results are shown in Figure S25 Figure S25.

Water densities from pure-water NPT simulations comparing eSEN-Omol and eSEN-Omol-D4

Figure S25. Water densities. eSEN-omol produces higher than expected water density at 1 atm due neglect of 3-body dispersion in the VV10 functional used for training data [28]. Finetuning eSEN-omol on 4M DFT-D4Rev [129] calculations recovers the correct density. Densities are invariant to number of waters and box sizes (eg: 1k and 10k).

In Figure S26 Figure S26, we show that using the D4-corrected model, we can closely recover the barrier height compared to the uncorrected model. We also show that we can run all our simulations close to 1 g/cm3^{3} densities using NVT alone with no NPT using the uncorrected eSEN-omol model to produce nearly identical results. This result is not very surprising: the neglect of 3-body dispersion introduces an extremely systematic shift in the absolute interaction energies of molecules who effect becomes manifest mainly when these small quantities accumulate at the condensed phase scale; relative energies, such as in barrier heights are expected to be only barely affected.

OPES MetaD estimated barrier heights plot. Legend: eSEN-omol npt, eSEN-omol-nvt-only, eSEN-omol-D4Rev. Vertical axis: Free energy F (kcal/mol); right vertical axis: F (kJ/mol); horizontal axis: $d_{\mathrm{C-O}}-d_{\mathrm{C-C}}$ (nm). Annotations: reactant, TS; $\Delta G^{\ddagger}=18.2 \pm 0.5$ kcal/mol, $\Delta G^{\ddagger}=18.6 \pm 0.3$ kcal/mol, $\Delta G^{\ddagger}=17.6 \pm 0.7$ kcal/mol.

Figure S26. OPES MetaD estimated barrier heights. (A) eSEN-omol NPT (conditions used in main text). (B) eSEN-omol NVT at 1 g/cm³ without NPT. (C) eSEN-omol corrected by finetuning with D4-rev

Folding of Polyalanine in Vacuum

The polyalanine peptide with a length of 15 residues (ACE-Ala15-NME) is known to form a stable helix structure at 300 K in vacuum [131, 132]. We used this peptide to assess eSEN-omol in forming the expected stable helix structure from an extended configuration. We constructed the initial configuration of ACE-Ala15-NME in an extended configuration using AmberTools v24.8 [133]. We then minimized the energy of this structure using the LBFGS algorithm in ASE [81], setting a convergence criterion for the force on all individual atoms to be less than 0.01 eV/A˚\AA within a maximum of 10,000 steps. Then, we conducted Langevin dynamics for 1 ns with a friction coefficient of 0.01 fs−1^{-1} and a time step of 1 fs in a vacuum at 300 K using the eSEN-omol model s1p1 calculator in ASE [81]. The net charge and spin of the system were set to 1 and 0, respectively. The changes in the secondary structure of ACE-Ala15-NME during the 1 ns simulations, as defined by the Dictionary of Secondary Structure in Proteins (DSSP) [134] are shown in Figure S27. Within 200 ps, the extended coil configuration transitions into a bend configuration and then into a 3103_{10} helix structure. The predominant 3103_{10} helix structure lasts up to 0.7 ns before ∼75%\sim75\% of the fraction of residues in Ala15 convert to the stable α\alpha-helix structure. A few of the residues form a turn and retain the coil configuration during the last 0.2 ns of the simulation. The observed variations between the different types of secondary structures with a stable α\alpha-helix structure at the end of the 1 ns simulation are in good agreement with Kovács et al. [131] and Kabylda et al. [132].

Fraction of residues contributing to turn, bend, 3_10-helix, alpha-helix, and coil secondary structure types during a 1 ns simulation, with snapshots at 0 ns, 0.5 ns, and 1 ns

Figure S27. ACE-Ala15-NME folds into a helix state from an extended state at 300 K in vacuum. The changes in the fraction of residues contributing to turn, bend, 3103_{10} helix, α\alpha-helix, and coil secondary structure type during the 1 ns simulation are shown using green, yellow, blue, red, and gray colors, respectively. Snapshots at 0 ns, 0.5 ns, and 1 ns are rendered at the top of the figure using NGLview 3.0.3 [135].

References

  1. [1]Tony Hunter. Protein kinases and phosphatases: The Yin and Yang of protein phosphorylation and signaling. Cell, 80(2):225–236, 1995. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(95)90405-0.DOI
  2. [2]U. T. Bornscheuer, G. W. Huisman, R. J. Kazlauskas, S. Lutz, J. C. Moore, and K. Robins. Engineering the third wave of biocatalysis. Nature, 485(7397):185–194, 2012. doi: 10.1038/nature11117.DOI
  3. [3]Peter K. Robinson. Enzymes: principles and biotechnological applications. Essays in Biochemistry, 59:1–41, 2015. doi: 10.1042/bse0590001.DOI
  4. [4]Arieh Warshel. Multiscale modeling of biological functions: From enzymes to molecular machines (Nobel Lecture). Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 53(38):10020–10031, 2014. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201403689.
  5. [5]Tomáš Trnka, Igor Tvaroška, and Jaroslav Koča. Automated training of RexaFF reactive force fields for energetics of enzymatic reactions. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 14(1):291–302, 2018. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00870.DOI
  6. [6]Xiaoli Lu, Jinfeng Chen, and Jing Huang. The continuous evolution of biomolecular force fields. Structure, 33(7):1138–1149, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2025.05.013.DOI
  7. [7]Siewert J. Marrink, Luca Monticelli, Manuel N. Melo, Riccardo Alessandri, D. Peter Tieleman, and Paulo C. T. Souza. Two decades of Martini: Better beads, broader scope. WIREs Computational Molecular Science, 13(1):e1620, 2023. doi: 10.1002/wcms.1620.DOI
  8. [8]Hans Martin Senn and Walter Thiel. QM/MM methods for biomolecular systems. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 48(7):1198–1229, 2009. doi: 10.1002/anie.200802019.DOI
  9. [9]Shina C. L. Kamerlin and Arieh Warshel. The empirical valence bond model: Theory and applications. WIREs Computational Molecular Science, 1(1):30–45, 2011. doi: 10.1002/wcms.10.DOI
  10. [10]Evgeny Moerman, David Furman, and David J. Wales. Systematic evaluation of reaxff reactive force fields for biochemical applications. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 17(1):497–514, 2021. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01043.DOI
  11. [11]Michael C. Hutter and Volkhard Helms. The mechanism of phosphorylation of natural nucleosides and anti-HIV analogues by nucleoside diphosphate kinase is independent of their sugar substituents. ChemBioChem, 3(7):643–651, 2002. doi: 10.1002/1439-7633(20020703)3:7<643::AID-CBIC643>3.0.CO;2-B.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12324998
  12. [12]Heather J. Kulik. Large-scale QM/MM free energy simulations of enzyme catalysis reveal the influence of charge transfer. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 20:20650, 2018. doi: 10.1039/c8cp03871f.DOI
  13. [13]Darren Demapan, Joörg Kussmann, Christian Ochsenfeld, and Qiang Cui. Factors that determine the variation of equilibrium and kinetic properties of QM/MM enzyme simulations: QM region, conformation, and boundary condition. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 18(4):2530–2542, 02 2022. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00714.DOI
  14. [14]Qiang Cui, Tanmoy Pal, and Luke Xie. Biomolecular QM/MM simulations: What are some of the “burning issues”? The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 125(3):689–702, 01 2021. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.0c09898.DOI
  15. [15]José Pablo Rivas-Fernández, Martin Calvelo, Mert Sagirogluigil, Qinghua Liao, and Carme Rovira. Efficient QM/MM modeling of enzymatic reactions combining PathCV with OPES. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 22(11):5867–5881, 2026. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.6c00492.
  16. [16]Richard Lonsdale, Jeremy N. Harvey, and Adrian J. Mulholland. A practical guide to modelling enzyme-catalysed reactions. Chemical Society Reviews, 41(8):3025–3038, 2012. doi: 10.1039/C2CS15297E.DOI
  17. [17]Guilherme M. Arantes and Jan Řezáč. Benchmark of approximate quantum chemical and machine learning potentials for biochemical proton transfer reactions. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 21(14):7149–7159, 2025. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5c00690.DOI
  18. [18]Ryan Scott Wilkins, Bjarte Aarmo Lund, Geir Villy Isaksen, Johan Åqvist, and Bjørn Olav Brandsdal. Accurate computation of thermodynamic activation parameters in the chorismate mutase reaction from empirical valence bond simulations. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 20(1):451–458, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01105.
  19. [19]Chenghan Li and Garnet Kin-Lic Chan. Accurate QM/MM molecular dynamics for periodic systems in GPU4PySCF with applications to enzyme catalysis. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 21(2):803–816, 2025. doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.4c01698.
  20. [20]Rafael García-Meseguer, Enrique Ortí, Iñaki Tuñón, J. Javier Ruiz-Pernía, and Juan Aragón. Insights into the enhancement of the poly(ethylene terephthalate) degradation by FAST-PETase from computational modeling. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 145(35):19243–19255, 2023. doi: 10.1021/jacs.3c04427.
  21. [21]Tong Wang, Xinheng He, Mingyu Li, Yatao Li, Ran Bi, Yusong Wang, Chaoran Cheng, Xiangzhen Shen, Jiawei Meng, He Zhang, Haiquang Liu, Zun Wang, Shaoning Li, Bin Shao, and Tie-Yan Liu. Ab initio characterization of protein molecular dynamics with AI2BMD. Nature, 635(8040):1019–1027, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08127-z.DOI
  22. [22]Adil Kabylda, J. Thorben Frank, Sergio Suárez-Dou, Almaz Khabibrakhmanov, Leonardo Medrano Sandonas, Oliver T. Unke, Stefan Chmiela, Klaus-Robert Müller, and Alexandre Tkatchenko. Molecular simulations with a pretrained neural network and universal pairwise force fields. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 147(37):33723–33734, 2025. doi: 10.1021/jacs.5c09558.DOI
  23. [23]Oliver T. Unke, Martin Stöhr, Stefan Ganscha, Thomas Unterthiner, Hartmut Maennel, Sergii Kashubin, Daniel Ahlin, Michael Gastegger, Leonardo Medrano Sandonas, Joshua T. Berryman, Alexandre Tkatchenko, and Klaus-Robert Müller. Biomolecular dynamics with machine-learned quantum-mechanical force fields trained on diverse chemical fragments. Science Advances, 10(14):eadn4397, 2024. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adn4397.DOI
  24. [24]Xujian Wang, Junmei Wang, and Wan-Lu Li. Machine learning/molecular mechanics enzymology for the next generation of computational enzymatic catalysis. Chem Catalysis, 6(3):101658, 2026. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.checat.2026.101658.
  25. [25]Takuto Ohmura, Sei Inoue, and Tohru Terada. ML/MM toolkit - Towards accelerated mechanistic investigation of enzymatic reactions. ChemRxiv, 2025. doi: 10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-jft1k.DOI
  26. [26]Zichen Sun, Yifan Li, Wenqiang Cui, and Wen Jun Xie. Evaluating mechanical-embedding ML/MM for predicting mutation effects in chorismate mutase catalysis. ChemRxiv, 2026. doi: 10.26434/chemrxiv.15005529/v1.DOI
  27. [27]Bingqing Cheng. Latent Ewald summation for machine learning of long-range interactions. arXiv, 2024. doi: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.15165.
  28. [28]Daniel S. Levine, Muhammed Shuaibi, Evan Walter Clark Spotte-Smith, Michael G. Taylor, Muhammad R. Hasyim, Kyle Michel, Ilyes Batatia, Gábor Csányi, Misko Dzamba, Peter Eastman, Nathan C. Frey, Xiang Fu, Vahe Gharakhanyan, Aditi S. Krishnapriyan, Joshua A. Rackers, Sanjeev Raja, Ammar Rizvi, Andrew S. Rosen, Zachary Ulissi, Santiago Vargas, C. Lawrence Zitnick, Samuel M. Blau, and Brandon M. Wood. The Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) Dataset, Evaluations, and Models. arXiv, 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08762.DOI
  29. [29]Raphael T Husistein and Markus Reiher. A new paradigm for computational chemistry. arXiv, 2026. doi: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01360.
  30. [30]Nitesh Kumar, Jianwei Lai, Casey S. Mezerkor, Jiaq Wang, Kamila M. Właderek, J. David Baziak, Samuel M. Blau, and Ethan J. Crumlin. Prediction and experimental verification of electrolyte solvation structure from an omol25-trained interatomic potential. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 17(31):9073–9084, 2026. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.6c01037.DOI
  31. [31]Sawyer VanZanten and Corin Wagen. Benchmarking OMol25-trained models on experimental reduction-potential and electron-affinity data. ChemRxiv, 2025(0908), 2025. doi: 10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-3stpx.DOI
  32. [32]Brandon M. Wood, Misko Dzamba, Xiang Fu, Meng Gao, Muhammed Shuaibi, Luis Barroso-Luque, Kareem Abdelmaqsoud, Vahe Gharakhanyan, John R. Kitchin, Daniel S. Levine, Kyle Michel, Anuroop Sriram, Taco Cohen, Abhishek Das, Ammar Rizvi, Sushree Jagriti Sahoo, Zachary W. Ulissi, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. UMA: A Family of Universal Models for Atoms. arXiv, 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.23971.arxiv.org/abs/2506.23971
  33. [33]Jérôme Hénin, Tony Lelièvre, Michael R. Shirts, Omar Valsson, and Lucie Delemotte. Enhanced sampling methods for molecular dynamics simulations [article v1.0]. Living Journal of Computational Molecular Science, 4 (1):1583, 2022. doi: 10.33011/livecoms.4.1.1583.DOI
  34. [34]Dhiman Ray, Sudip Das, and Umberto Raucci. Kinetic view of enzyme catalysis from enhanced sampling QM/MM simulations. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 64(9):3953–3958, 2024. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.4c00475.DOI
  35. [35]Frederik Claeyssens, Kara E Ranaghan, Narin Lawan, Stephen J Macrae, Frederick R Manby, Jeremy N Harvey, and Adrian J Mulholland. Analysis of chorismate mutase catalysis by QM/MM modelling of enzyme-catalysed and uncatalysed reactions. Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry, 9(5):1578–1590, 2011.DOI
  36. [36]D. Burschowsky, A. van Eerde, M. Ökvist, A. Kienhöfer, P. Kast, D. Hilvert, and U. Krengel. Wild-type chorismate mutase of Bacillus subtilis at 1.6 Å resolution. Protein Data Bank, 2014. URL https://doi.org/10.2210/pdb3zo8/pdb. PDB ID: 3Z08.
  37. [37]Peter Kast, M Asif-Ullah, and Donald Hilvert. Is chorismate mutase a prototypic entropy trap? - Activation parameters for the Bacillus subtilis enzyme. Tetrahedron Letters, 37(16):2691–2694, 1996.DOI
  38. [38]Steven G Sogo, Theodore S Widlanski, John H Hoare, Charles E Grimshaw, Glenn A Berchtold, and Jeremy R Knowles. Stereochemistry of the rearrangement of chorismate to prephenate: chorismate mutase involves a chair transition state. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 106(9):2701–2703, 1984.DOI
  39. [39]Daniel Burschowsky, André van Eerde, Mats Ökvist, Alexander Kienhöfer, Peter Kast, Donald Hilvert, and Ute Krengel. Electrostatic transition state stabilization rather than reactant destabilization provides the chemical basis for efficient chorismate mutase catalysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(49):17516–17521, 2014.DOI
  40. [40]Michele Invernizzi and Michele Parrinello. Rethinking metadynamics: From bias potentials to probability distributions. Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters., 11(7):2731–2736, 2020. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c00497.DOI
  41. [41]Michele Invernizzi, Pablo M. Piaggi, and Michele Parrinello. Unified approach to enhanced sampling. Physical Review X, 10(4):041034, 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.041034.DOI
  42. [42]P. R. Andrews, G. D. Smith, and I. G. Young. Transition-state stabilization and enzymic catalysis: kinetic and molecular orbital studies of the rearrangement of chorismate to prephenate. Biochemistry, 12(18):3492–3498, 1973. doi: 10.1021/bi00742a009.
  43. [43]Jiashu Liang and Martin Head-Gordon. Gold-Standard Chemical Database 137 (GSCDB137): A diverse set of accurate energy differences for assessing and developing density functionals. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 2025. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5c01380.DOI
  44. [44]Moritz Thürlemann, Felix Pultar, Igor Gordiy, Enrico Ruijsenaars, and Sereina Riniker. AMP-BMS/MM: A multiscale neural network potential for the fast and accurate simulation of protein dynamics and enzymatic reactions. ChemRxiv, 2026. doi: 10.26434/chemrxiv-2026-ck9w0.
  45. [45]Dhiman Ray, Narjes Ansari, Valerio Rizzi, Michele Invernizzi, and Michele Parrinello. Rare Event Kinetics from Adaptive Bias Enhanced Sampling. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 18(11):6500–6509, 2022.DOI
  46. [46]Shosuke Yoshida, Kazumi Hiraga, Toshihiko Takehana, Ikuo Taniguchi, Hironao Yamaji, Yasuhito Maeda, Kiyotsuna Toyohara, Kenji Miyamoto, Yoshiharu Kimura, and Kohei Oda. A bacterium that degrades and assimilates poly(ethylene terephthalate). Science, 351(6278):1196–1199, 2016. doi: 10.1126/science.aad6359.DOI
  47. [47]L. Hedstrom. Serine protease mechanism and specificity. Chemical Reviews, 102(12):4501–4524, 2002.
  48. [48]A. Rauwerdink and R. J. Kazlauskas. How the same core catalytic machinery catalyzes 17 different reactions: The serine-histidine-aspartate catalytic triad of α/β-hydrolase fold enzymes. ACS Catalysis, 5(10):6153–6176, Oct 2015.DOI
  49. [49]Tucker Burgin, Benjamin C. Pollard, Brandon C. Knott, Heather B. Mayes, Michael F. Crowley, John E. McGeehan, Gregg T. Beckham, and H. Lee Woodcock. The reaction mechanism of the Ideonella sakaiensis PETase enzyme. Communications Chemistry, 7(1):65, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s42004-024-01154-x.DOI
  50. [50]Alessandro Berselli, Maria Cristina Menziani, GiovanniMaria Piccini, and Francesco Muniz-Miranda. Molecular-level mechanistic insights into petase-catalyzed plastics hydrolysis from accurate QM/MM free energy calculations. ChemRxiv, 2025. doi: 10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-pkf5k.DOI
  51. [51]Xuehui Guo, Daiqian Xie, and Yanzi Zhou. QM/MM-MD studies on the degradation mechanism and size effect of PET by PETase. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 129(22):5400–5410, 2025. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.5c00344.DOI
  52. [52]Brandon C. Knott, Erika Erickson, Mark D. Allen, Japheth E. Gado, Rosie Graham, Fiona L. Kearns, Isabel Pardo, Ece Topuzlu, Jared J. Anderson, Harry P. Austin, Graham Dominick, Christopher W. Johnson, Nicholas A. Rorrer, Caralyn J. Szostkiewicz, Valérie Copié, Christina M. Payne, H. Lee Woodcock, Bryon S. Donohoe, Gregg T. Beckham, and John E. McGeehan. Characterization and engineering of a two-enzyme system for plastics depolymerization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(41):25476–25485, 2020. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2006753117.DOI
  53. [53]Anna Jäckerling, Marc van der Kamp, Birgit Strodel, and Kirill Zinovjev. Influence of wobbling tryptophan and mutations on PET degradation explored by QM/MM free energy calculations. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 64(19):7544–7554, 2024. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.4c00776.
  54. [54]Sergio Boneta, Kemel Arafet, and Vicent Moliner. QM/MM study of the enzymatic biodegradation mechanism of polyethylene terephthalate. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 61(6):3041–3051, 2021. doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00394.DOI
  55. [55]Rita P. Magalhães, Henrique S. Fernandes, and Sérgio F. Sousa. The critical role of Asp206 stabilizing residues on the catalytic mechanism of the Ideonella sakaiensis PETase. Catalysis Science & Technology, 12(11):3474–3483, 2022. doi: 10.1039/d1cy02271g.DOI
  56. [56]Hong Guo, Qiang Cui, William N Lipscomb, and Martin Karplus. Substrate conformational transitions in the active site of chorismate mutase: Their role in the catalytic mechanism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(16):9032–9037, 2001.
  57. [57]Harry P. Austin, Mark D. Allen, Bryon S. Donohoe, Nicholas A. Rorrer, Fiona L. Kearns, Rodrigo L. Silveira, Benjamin C. Pollard, Graham Dominick, Ramona Duman, Kamel El Omari, Vitaliy Mykhaylyk, Armin Wagner, William E. Michener, Antonella Amore, Munir S. Skaf, Michael F. Crowley, Alan W. Thorne, Christopher W. Johnson, H. Lee Woodcock, John E. McGeehan, and Gregg T. Beckham. Characterization and engineering of a plastic-degrading aromatic polyesterase. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19):E4350–E4357, 2018. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1718804115.DOI
  58. [58]Yuji Sugita, Akio Kitao, and Yuko Okamoto. Multidimensional replica-exchange method for free-energy calculations. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 113(15):6042–6051, 2000.
  59. [59]Chun-Chi Chen, Xu Han, Tzu-Ping Ko, Weidong Liu, and Rey-Ting Guo. Structural studies reveal the molecular mechanism of PETase. The FEBS Journal, 285(20):3717–3723, 2018. doi: 10.1111/febs.14612.DOI
  60. [60]Ying-Wu Xu, Solange Moréra, Joël Janin, and Jacqueline Cherfils. AlF3 mimics the transition state of protein phosphorylation in the crystal structure of nucleoside diphosphate kinase and MgADP. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(8):3579–3583, 1997. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.8.3579.DOI
  61. [61]Solange Morera, Ioan Lascu, Christian Dumas, Gerard LeBras, Pierre Briozzo, Michel Veron, and Joel Janin. Adenosine 5’-diphosphate binding and the active site of nucleoside diphosphate kinase. Biochemistry, 33(2):459–467, 1994.
  62. [62]Abel De La Rosa, Patricia S. Steeg, and Roger L. Williams. Nm23/nucleoside diphosphate kinase: Toward a structural and biochemical understanding of its biological functions. BioEssays, 17(1):53–62, 1995. doi: 10.1002/bies.950170111.DOI
  63. [63]Benoit Schneider, Manuel Babolat, Ying Wu Xu, Joël Janin, Michel Véron, and Dominique Deville-Bonne. Mechanism of phosphoryl transfer by nucleoside diphosphate kinase. European Journal of Biochemistry, 268(7):1964–1971, 2001. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1327.2001.02070.x.DOI
  64. [64]Heather J. Kulik, Jianyu Zhang, Judith P. Klinman, and Todd J. Martínez. How large should the qm region be in QM/MM calculations? The case of catechol O-methyltransferase. Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 120(44):11381–11394, 2016. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.6b07814.DOI
  65. [65]Iván Solt, Petr Kulhánek, István Simon, Steven Winfield, Mike C. Payne, Gábor Csányi, and Monika Fuxreiter. Evaluating boundary dependent errors in QM/MM simulations. Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 113(17):5728–5735, 2009. doi: 10.1021/jp807277r.DOI
  66. [66]Vyshnavi Vennelakanti, Azadeh Nazemi, Rimsha Mahmood, Adam H. Steeves, and Heather J. Kulik. Harder, better, faster, stronger: Large-scale QM and QM/MM for predictive modeling in enzymes and proteins. Current Opinion in Structural Biology, 72:9–17, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2021.07.004.
  67. [67]P. Gonin, Y. Xu, L. Milon, D. Sandrine, M. Morr, R. Kumar, M.-L. Lacombe, J. Janin, and I. Lascu. Catalytic mechanism of nucleoside diphosphate kinase investigated using nucleotide analogues, viscosity effects, and X-ray crystallography. Biochemistry, 38(22):7265–7272, 1999. doi: 10.1021/bi982990v.DOI
  68. [68]Alessandro Barducci, Giovanni Bussi, and Michele Parrinello. Well-tempered metadynamics: a smoothly converging and tunable free-energy method. Physical Review Letters, 100(2):020603, 2008.
  69. [69]Glenn M Torrie and John P. Valleau. Nonphysical sampling distributions in monte carlo free-energy estimation: Umbrella sampling. Journal of Computational Physics, 23(2):187–199, 1977.
  70. [70]Aniruddha Seal, Laura Gagliardi, and Andrew L. Ferguson. Computing reaction kinetics with MC-PDFT–OPESf: Combining multireference electronic structure theory and enhanced sampling. Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters., 16(44):11458–11463, 2025. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.5c02966.DOI
  71. [71]Lars Goerigk, Andreas Hansen, Christoph Bauer, Stephan Ehrlich, Asim Najibi, and Stefan Grimme. A look at the density functional theory zoo with the advanced GMTKN55 database for general main group thermochemistry, kinetics and noncovalent interactions. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 19(48):32184–32215, 2017.
  72. [72]Narbe Mardirossian and Martin Head-Gordon. ωB97M-V: A combinatorially optimized, range-separated hybrid, meta-GGA density functional with VV10 nonlocal correlation. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 144(21), 2016.
  73. [73]John Jumper, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green, Michael Figurnov, Olaf Ronneberger, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Russ Bates, Augustin Žídek, Anna Potapenko, Alex Bridgland, Clemens Meyer, Simon A. A. Kohl, Andrew J. Ballard, Andrew Cowie, Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Stanislav Nikolov, Rishub Jain, Jonas Adler, Trevor Back, Stig Petersen, David Reiman, Ellen Clancy, Michal Zielinski, Martin Steinegger, Michalina Pacholska, Tamas Berghammer, Sebastian Bodenstein, David Silver, Oriol Vinyals, Andrew W. Senior, Koray Kavukcuoglu, Pushmeet Kohli, and Demis Hassabis. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature, 596(7873):583–589, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2.DOI
  74. [74]Josh Abramson, Jonas Adler, Jack Dunger, Richard Evans, Tim Green, Alexander Pritzel, Olaf Ronneberger, Lindsay Willmore, Andrew J. Ballard, Joshua Bambrick, Sebastian W. Bodenstein, David A. Evans, Chia-Chun Hung, Michael O’Neill, David Reiman, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Zachary Wu, Akvilė Žemgulytė, Eirini Arvaniti, Charles Beattie, Ottavia Bertolli, Alex Bridgland, Alexey Cherepanov, Miles Congreve, Alexander I. Cowen-Rivers, Andrew Cowie, Michael Figurnov, Fabian B. Fuchs, Hannah Gladman, Rishub Jain, Yousuf A. Khan, Caroline M. R. Low, Kuba Perlin, Anna Potapenko, Pascal Savy, Sukhdeep Singh, Adrian Stecula, Ashok Thillaisundaram, Catherine Tong, Sergei Yakneen, Ellen D. Zhong, Michal Zielinski, Augustin Žídek, Victor Bapst, Pushmeet Kohli, Max Jaderberg, Demis Hassabis, and John M. Jumper. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3. Nature, 630(8016):493–500, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w.DOI
  75. [75]Rohith Krishna, Jue Wang, Woody Ahern, Pascal Stur姆fels, Preetham Venkatesh, Indrek Kalvet, Gyu Rie Lee, Felix S. Morey-Burrows, Ivan Anishchenko, Ian R. Humphreys, Ryan McHugh, Dionne Vafeados, Xinting Li, George A. Sutherland, Andrew Hitchcock, C. Neil Hunter, Alex Kang, Evans Brackenbrough, Asim K. Bera, Minkyung Baek, Frank DiMaio, and David Baker. Generalized biomolecular modeling and design with RoseTTAFold All-Atom. Science, 384(6693):eadl2528, 2024.
  76. [76]Zeming Lin, Halil Akin, Roshan Rao, Brian Hie, Zhongkai Zhu, Wenting Lu, Nikita Smetanin, Robert Verkuil, Ori Kabeli, Yaniv Shmueli, Allan dos Santos Costa, Maryam Fazel-Zarandi, Tom Sercu, Salvatore Candido, and Alexander Rives. Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic-level protein structure with a language model. Science, 379(6637):1123–1130, 2023. doi: 10.1126/science.ade2574.DOI
  77. [77]Sarah Lewis, Tim Hempel, José Jiménez-Luna, Michael Gastegger, Yu Xie, Andrew Y. K. Foong, Victor García Satorras, Osama Abdin, Bastiaan S. Veeling, Iryna Zaporozhets, Yaoyi Chen, Soojung Yang, Adam E. Foster, Arne Schneuing, Jigyasa Nigam, Federico Barbero, Vincent Stimper, Andrew Campbell, Jason Yim, Marten Lienen, Yu Shi, Shuxin Zheng, Hannes Schulz, Usman Munir, Roberto Sordillo, Ryota Tomioka, Cecilia Clementi, and Frank Noé. Scalable emulation of protein equilibrium ensembles with generative deep learning. Science, 389(6761):eadv9817, 2025. doi: 10.1126/science.adv9817.DOI
  78. [78]Bowen Jing, Bonnie Berger, and Tommi Jaakkola. AlphaFold meets flow matching for generating protein ensembles. arXiv, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.04845.DOI
  79. [79]Yaowei Jin, Qi Huang, Ziyang Song, Mingyue Zheng, Dan Teng, and Qian Shi. P2DFlow: A protein ensemble generative model with SE(3) flow matching. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 21(6):3288–3296, 2025.
  80. [80]Giacomo Janson, Alexander Jussupow, and Michael Feig. Deep generative modeling of temperature-dependent structural ensembles of proteins. Communications Chemistry, 8(1):354, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s42004-025-01737-2.DOI
  81. [81]Ask Hjorth Larsen, Jens Jørgen Mortensen, Jakob Blomqvist, Ivano E Castelli, Rune Christensen, Marcin Dułak, Jesper Friis, Michael N Groves, Björk Hammer, Cory Hargus, Eric D Hermes, Paul C Jennings, Peter Bjerre Jensen, James Kermode, John R Kitchin, Esben Leonhard Kolsbjerg, Joseph Kubal, Kristen Kaasbjerg, Steen Lysgaard, Jón Bergmann Maronsson, Tristan Maxson, Thomas Olsen, Lars Pastewka, Andrew Peterson, Carsten Rostgaard, Jakob Schiøtz, Ole Schütt, Mikkel Strange, Kristian S Thygesen, Tejs Vegge, Lasse Vilhelmsen, Michael Walter, Zhenhua Zeng, and Karsten W Jacobsen. The atomic simulation environment — a Python library for working with atoms. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 29(27):273002, 2017.
  82. [82]Muhammed Shuaibi, Abhishek Das, Anuroop Sriram, Misko, Luis Barroso-Luque, Ray Gao, Siddharth Goyal, Zachary Ulissi, Brandon Wood, Tian Xie, Junwoong Yoon, Brook Wander, Adeesh Kolluru, Richard Barnes, Ethan Sunshine, Kevin Tran, Xiang, Daniel Levine, Nima Shoghi, Ilias Chair, Janice Lan, Kaylee Tian, Joseph Musielewicz, clz55, Weihua Hu, , Kyle Michel, willis, and vbttchr. FAIRChem, 2026. URL https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairchem.
  83. [83]The PLUMED Consortium. Promoting transparency and reproducibility in enhanced molecular simulations. Nature Methods, 16(8):670–673, 2019.
  84. [84]Benjamin Rhodes, Sander Vandenhaute, Vaidotas Simkus, James Gin, Jonathan Godwin, Tim Duignan, and Mark Neumann. Orb-v3: Atomistic simulation at scale. arXiv, 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.06231.
  85. [85]Albert Musaelian, Simon Batzer, Anders Johansson, Lixin Sun, Cameron J. Owen, Mordechai Kornbluth, and Boris Kozinsky. Learning local equivariant representations for large-scale atomistic dynamics. arXiv, 2022. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.05249.DOI
  86. [86]Ken ichi Nomura, Shinnosuke Hattori, Satoshi Ohmura, Ikumi Kanemasu, Kohei Shimamura, Nabankur Dasgupta, Aiichiro Nakano, Rajiv K. Kalia, and Priya Vashishta. Allegro-FM: Towards equivariant foundation model for exascale molecular dynamics simulations. arXiv, 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.06073.
  87. [87]Kevin Han, Bowen Deng, Amir Barati Farimani, and Gerbrand Ceder. DistMLIP: A distributed inference platform for machine learning interatomic potentials. arXiv, 2026. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.02023.DOI
  88. [88]A. P. Thompson, H. M. Aktulga, R. Berger, D. S. Bolintineanu, W. M. Brown, P. S. Crozier, P. J. in ’t Veld, A. Kohlmeyer, S. G. Moore, T. D. Nguyen, R. Shan, M. J. Stevens, J. Tranchida, C. Trott, and S. J. Plimpton. LAMMPS - a flexible simulation tool for particle-based materials modeling at the atomic, meso, and continuum scales. Computer Physics Communications, 271:108171, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108171.DOI
  89. [89]Yutack Park, Jaesun Kim, Seungwoo Hwang, and Seungwu Han. Scalable parallel algorithm for graph neural network interatomic potentials in molecular dynamics simulations. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 20(11):4857–4868, 2024. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00190.DOI
  90. [90]Frederik Claeyssens, Jeremy N. Harvey, Frederick R. Manby, Ricardo A. Mata, Adrian J. Mulholland, Kara E. Ranaghan, Martin Schütz, Stephan Thiel, Walter Thiel, and Hans-Joachim Werner. High-Accuracy Computation of Reaction Barriers in Enzymes. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 45(41):6856–6859, 2006. doi: 10.1002/anie.200602711. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/anie.200602711.DOI
  91. [91]Kara E. Ranaghan and Adrian J. Mulholland. Conformational effects in enzyme catalysis: QM/MM free energy calculation of the ‘NAC’ contribution in chorismate mutase. Chemical Communications, 40(10):1238–1239, January 2004. doi: 10.1039/b402388a. URL https://doi.org/10.1039/b402388a.
  92. [92]Yezhi Jin, Gustavo R Perez-Lemus, Pablo F Zubieta Rico, and Juan J de Pablo. Improving machine learned force fields for complex fluids through enhanced sampling: A liquid crystal case study. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 128(34):7257–7268, 2024.
  93. [93]Clinton A. Sarisky and Stephen L. Mayo. The beta-beta-alpha fold: Explorations in sequence space. Journal of Molecular Biology, 307(5):1411–1418, 2001. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.2000.4345.
  94. [94]Andrew L Ferguson. Bayessham: A Bayesian approach for free energy estimation, reweighting, and uncertainty quantification in the weighted histogram analysis method. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 38(18):1583–1605, 2017.
  95. [95]Dhiman Ray, Narjes Ansari, Valerio Rizzi, Michele Invernizzi, and Michele Parrinello. Rare event kinetics from adaptive bias enhanced sampling. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 18(11):6500–6509, 2022. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00806.DOI
  96. [96]Helmut Grubmüller. Predicting slow structural transitions in macromolecular systems: Conformational flooding. Physical Review E, 52(3):2893–2906, 1995. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.52.2893.DOI
  97. [97]Arthur F. Voter. A method for accelerating the molecular dynamics simulation of infrequent events. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 106(11):4665–4677, March 1997. doi: 10.1063/1.473503.DOI
  98. [98]Pratyush Tiwary and Michele Parrinello. From metadynamics to dynamics. Physical Review Letters, 111(23):230602, 2013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.230602.DOI
  99. [99]Dhiman Ray and Michele Parrinello. Kinetics from metadynamics: Principles, applications, and outlook. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 19(17):5649–5670, 2023. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00660.DOI
  100. [100]Matteo Salvalaglio, Pratyush Tiwary, and Michele Parrinello. Assessing the reliability of the dynamics reconstructed from metadynamics. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 10(4):1420–1425, 2014.
  101. [101]Pratyush Tiwary, Jagannath Mondal, and B. J. Berne. How and when does an anticancer drug leave its binding site? Science Advances, 3(5):e1700014, 2017. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1700014.DOI
  102. [102]Dhiman Ray, Sudip Das, and Umberto Raucci. Kinetic view of enzyme catalysis from enhanced sampling qm/mm simulations. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 64(9):3953–3958, 2024.
  103. [103]Michele Invernizzi and Michele Parrinello. Exploration vs convergence speed in adaptive-bias enhanced sampling. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 18(6):3988–3996, June 2022. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00152.DOI
  104. [104]Y. M. Chook, H. Ke, and W. N. Lipscomb. Monofunctional chorismate mutase from Bacillus subtilis complexed with a transition state analog. Protein Data Bank, 1993. URL https://doi.org/10.2210/pdb2cht/pdb. PDB ID: 2CHT.
  105. [105]H. P. Austin, M. D. Allen, B. S. Donohoe, N. A. Rorrer, F. L. Kearns, R. L. Silveira, B. C. Pollard, G. Dominick, R. Duman, K. El Omari, V. Mykhaylyk, A. Wagner, W. E. Michener, A. Amore, M. S. Skaf, M. F. Crowley, A. W. Thorne, C. W. Johnson, H. L. Woodcock, J. E. McGeehan, and G. T. Beckham. Crystal structure of Ideonella sakaiensis PETase. https://doi.org/10.2210/pdb6EQE/pdb, 2018. PDB ID: 6EQE.
  106. [106]Shankar Kumar, John M Rosenberg, DjamaI Bouzida, Robert H Swendsen, and Peter A Kollman. The weighted histogram analysis method for free-energy calculations on biomolecules. I. The method. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 13(8):1011–1021, 1992.
  107. [107]X. Han, W. Liu, J.-W. Huang, J. Ma, Y. Zheng, T.-P. Ko, L. Xu, Y.-S. Cheng, C.-C. Chen, and R.-T. Guo. Structural insight into catalytic mechanism of PET hydrolase. Nature Communications, 8:2106, 2017. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02255-z.DOI
  108. [108]Sunhwan Jo, Taehoon Kim, Vidyashankara G Iyer, and Wonpil Im. CHARMM-GUI: A web-based graphical user interface for charmm. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 29(11):1859–1865, 2008.
  109. [109]Ying-Wu Xu, Solange Moréra, Joël Janin, and Jacqueline Cherfils. AlF3 mimics the transition state of protein phosphorylation in the crystal structure of nucleoside diphosphate kinase and MgADP. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(8):3579–3583, 1997.
  110. [110]Dong C Liu and Jorge Nocedal. On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization. Mathematical Programming, 45(1):503–528, 1989.
  111. [111]Glenn J Martyna, Douglas J Tobias, and Michael L Klein. Constant pressure molecular dynamics algorithms. Journal of Chemical Physics, 101(477):10–1063, 1994.
  112. [112]Kara K Grotz, Sergio Cruz-León, and Nadine Schwier. Optimized magnesium force field parameters for biomolecular simulations with accurate solvation, ion-binding, and water-exchange properties. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 17(4):2530–2540, 2021.
  113. [113]Maria T Panteva, George M Giambasu, and Darrin M York. Force field for Mg2+, Mn2+, Zn2+, and Cd2+ ions that have balanced interactions with nucleic acids. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 119(50):15460–15470, 2015.
  114. [114]Marcella Iannuzzi, Alessandro Laio, and Michele Parrinello. Efficient exploration of reactive potential energy surfaces using Car-Parrinello molecular dynamics. Physical Review Letters, 90(23):238302, 2003.
  115. [115]Justin A Lemkul. Introductory tutorials for simulating protein dynamics with GROMACS. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 128(39):9418–9435, 2024.
  116. [116]Herman JC Berendsen, J-Raúl Grigera, and Tjerk P Straatsma. The missing term in effective pair potentials. Journal of Physical Chemistry, 91(24):6269–6271, 1987.
  117. [117]Lawrie B Skinner, Congcong Huang, Daniel Schlesinger, Lars GM Pettersson, Anders Nilsson, and Chris J Benmore. Benchmark oxygen-oxygen pair-distribution function of ambient water from X-ray diffraction measurements with a wide Q-range. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 138(7), 2013.
  118. [118]Lawrie B Skinner, CJ Benmore, Joerg C Neuefeind, and John B Parise. The structure of water around the compressibility minimum. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 141(21), 2014.
  119. [119]In-Chul Yeh and Gerhard Hummer. System-size dependence of diffusion coefficients and viscosities from molecular dynamics simulations with periodic boundary conditions. Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 108(40):15873–15879, 2004. doi: 10.1021/jp0477147.DOI
  120. [120]Marcia L. Huber, Richard A. Perkins, Arno Laesecke, Daniel G. Friend, Jan V. Sengers, Marc J. Assael, Ifigenia N. Metaxa, Eckhard Vogel, Radim Mareš, and Kiyoshi Miyagawa. New international formulation for the viscosity of H2O. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 38(2):101–125, 2009. doi: 10.1063/1.3088050.DOI
  121. [121]Ahmed Dehaoui, Bernard Issenmann, and Frédéric Caupin. Viscosity of deeply supercooled water and its coupling to molecular diffusion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(39):12020–12025, 2015. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1508996112.DOI
  122. [122]Sandeep K Reddy, Shelby C Straight, Pushp Bajaj, C Huy Pham, Marc Riera, Daniel R Moberg, Miguel A Morales, Chris Knight, Andreas W Gö tz, and Francesco Paesani. On the accuracy of the MB-pol many-body potential for water: Interaction energies, vibrational frequencies, and classical thermodynamic and dynamical properties from clusters to liquid water and ice. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 145(19), 2016.
  123. [123]Kenneth T Gillen, DC Douglass, and MJR Hoch. Self-diffusion in liquid water to -31°C. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 57(12):5117–5119, 1972.
  124. [124]Manfred Holz, Stefan R Heil, and Antonio Sacco. Temperature-dependent self-diffusion coefficients of water and six selected molecular liquids for calibration in accurate 1H NMR PFG measurements. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 2(20):4740–4742, 2000.
  125. [125]Allan J Easteal, William E Price, and Lawrence A Woolf. Diaphragm cell for high-temperature diffusion measurements. tracer diffusion coefficients for water to 363 K. Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions 1: Physical Chemistry in Condensed Phases, 85(5):1091–1097, 1989.
  126. [126]Reginald Mills. Self-diffusion in normal and heavy water in the range 1–45°. The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 77(5):685–688, 1973.
  127. [127]Ka Un Lao. Canonical coupled cluster binding benchmark for nanoscale noncovalent complexes at the hundred-atom scale. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 161(23):234103, 2024. doi: 10.1063/5.0242359.DOI
  128. [128]Jiashu Liang and Martin Head-Gordon. Reaching for the performance limit of hybrid density functional theory for molecular chemistry. arXiv, 2026. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.23466.DOI
  129. [129]Marvin Friede, Sebastian Ehlert, Stefan Grimme, and Jan-Michael Mewes. Do optimally tuned range-separated hybrid functionals require a reparametrization of the dispersion correction? It depends. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 19(22):8097–8107, 2023. doi: 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00717.DOI
  130. [130]Frank Neese. Software update: The ORCA program system — version 6.0. WIREs Computational Molecular Science, 15(2):e70019, 2025.
  131. [131]Dávid Péter Kovács, J Harry Moore, Nicholas J Browning, Ilyes Batatia, Joshua T Horton, Yixuan Pu, Venkat Kapil, William C Witt, Ioan-Bogdan Magdau, Daniel J Cole, and Gábor Csányi. MACE-OFF: Short-range transferable machine learning force fields for organic molecules. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 147(21):17598–17611, 2025.
  132. [132]Adil Kabylada, J Thorben Frank, Sergio Suárez-Dou, Almaz Khabibrakhmanov, Leonardo Medrano Sandonas, Oliver T Unke, Stefan Chmiela, Klaus-Robert Müller, and Alexandre Tkatchenko. Molecular simulations with a pretrained neural network and universal pairwise force fields. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 147(37):33723–33734, 2025.
  133. [133]David A. Case, Hasan Metin Aktulga, Kellon Belfon, David S. Cerutti, G. Andrés Cisneros, Vinícius Wilian D. Cruzeiro, Negin Forouzesh, Timothy J. Giese, Andreas W. Götz, Holger Gohlke, Saeed Izadi, Koushik Kasavajhala, Mehmet C. Kaymak, Edward King, Tom Kurtzman, Tai-Sung Lee, Pengfei Li, Jian Liu, Tyler Luchko, Ray Luo, Madushanka Manathunga, Matias R. Machado, Hai Minh Nguyen, Kurt A. O’Hearn, Alexey V. Onufriev, Feng Pan, Sergio Pantano, Ruxi Qi, Ali Rahnamoun, Ali Risheh, Stephan Schott-Verdugo, Akhil Shajan, Jason Swails, Junmei Wang, Haixin Wei, Xiongwu Wu, Yongxian Wu, Shi Zhang, Shijun Zhao, Qiang Zhu, Thomas E. Cheatham, Daniel R. Roe, Adrian Roitberg, Carlos Simmerling, Darrin M. York, Maria C. Nangan, and Kenneth M. Merz. AmberTools. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 63(20):6183–6191, 2023.
  134. [134]Wolfgang Kabsch and Christian Sander. Dictionary of protein secondary structure: Pattern recognition of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers: Original Research on Biomolecules, 22(12):2577–2637, 1983.
  135. [135]Hai Nguyen, David A Case, and Alexander S Rose. NGLview – interactive molecular graphics for jupyter notebooks. Bioinformatics, 34(7):1241–1242, 2018.

Paper details

vlnc:W_qspcx4nn

published ·

added ·

Usage

views · 0

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Physics and Astronomy

Not recorded for this paper · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents