Martinize2 and Vermouth: Unified Framework for Topology Generation

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
In this study, the authors provide a new computational platform called Vermouth to automate topology generation, a crucial step that any biomolecular simulation starts with. Given a wide arrange of chemical structures that need to be simulated, varying qualities of structural models as inputs obtained from various sources, and diverse force fields and molecular dynamics engines employed for simulations, automation of this fundamental step is challenging, especially for complex systems and in case that there is a need to conduct high-throughput simulations in the application of computer-aided drug design (CADD). To overcome this challenge, the authors develop a programming library composed of components that carry out various types of fundamental functionalities that are commonly encountered in topological generation. These components are intended to be general for any type of molecules and not to depend on any specific force field and MD engines. To demonstrate the applicability of this library, the authors employ those components to re-assemble a pipeline called Martinize2 used in topology generation for simulations with a widely used coarse-grained model (CG) MARTINI. This pipeline can fully recapitulate the functionality of its original version Martinize but exhibit greatly enhanced generality, as confirmed by the ability of the pipeline to faithfully generate topologies for two high-complexity benchmarking sets of proteins.

Strengths:
The main strength of this work is the use of concepts and algorithms associated with induced subgraph in graph theory to automate several key but non-trivial steps of topology generation such as the identification of monomer residue units (MRU), the repair of input structures with missing atoms, the mapping of topologies between different resolutions, and the generation of parameters needed for describing interactions between MRUs.

Weaknesses:
Although the Vermouth library appears promising as a general tool for topology generation, there is insufficient information in the current manuscript and a lack of documentation that may allow users to easily apply this library. More detailed explanation of various classes such as Processor, Molecule, Mapping, ForceField etc. that are mentioned is still needed, including inputs, output and associated operations of these classes. Some simple demonstration of application of these classes would be of great help to users. The formats of internal databases used to describe reference structures and force fields may also need to be clarified. This is particularly important when the Vermouth needs to be adapted for other AA/CG force fields and other MD engines.

The successful automation of the Vermouth relies on the reference structures that need to be pre-determined. In case of the study of 43 small ligands, the reference structures and corresponding mapping to MARTINI-compatible representations for all these ligands have been already defined in the M3 force field and added into the Vermouth library. However, the authors need to comment on the scenario where significantly more ligands need to be considered and other force fields need to be used as CG representations with a lack of reference structures and mapping schemes.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Kroon, Grunewald, Marrink and coworkers present the development of Vermouth library for coarse grain assignment and parameterization and an updated version of python script, the Martinize2 program, to build Martini coarse grained (CG) models, primarily for protein systems.

Strengths:

In contrast to many mature and widely used tools to build all-atom (AA) models, there are few well-accepted programs for CG model constructions and parameterization. The research reported in this manuscript is among the ongoing efforts to build such tools for Martini CG modeling, with a clear goal of high-throughput simulations of complex biomolecular systems and, ultimately, whole-cell simulations. Thus, this manuscript targets a practical problem in computational biophysics. The authors see such an effort to unify operations like CG mapping, parameterization, etc. as a vital step from the software engineering perspective.

Weaknesses:

However, the manuscript in this shape is unclear in the scientific novelty and appears incremental upon existing methods and tools. The only "validation" (more like an example application) is to create Martini models with two protein structure sets (I-TASSER and AlphaFold). The success rate in building the models was only 73%, while the significant failure is due to incomplete AA coordinates. This suggests a dependence on the input AA models, which makes the results less attractive for high-throughput applications (for example, preparation/creation of the AA models can become the bottleneck). There seems to be an improvement in considering the protonation state and chemical modification, but convincing validation is still needed. Besides, limitations in the existing Martini models remain (like the restricted dynamics due to the elastic network, the electrostatic interactions or polarizability).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
The manuscript Kroon et al. described two algorithms, which when combined achieve high throughput automation of "martinizing" protein structures with selected protonation states and post-translational modifications.

Strengths:
A large scale protein simulation was attempted, showing strong evidence that authors' algorithms work smoothly.

The authors described the algorithms in detail and shared the open-source code under Apache 2.0 license on GitHub. This allows both reproducibility of extended usefulness within the field. These algorithms are potentially impactful if the authors can address some of the issues listed below.

Weaknesses:
One major caveat of the manuscript is that the authors claim their algorithms aim to "process any type of molecule or polymer, be it linear, cyclic,
branched, or dendrimeric, and mixtures thereof" and "enable researchers to prepare simulation input files for arbitrary (bio)polymers". However, the examples provided by the manuscript only support one type of biopolymer, i.e. proteins. Despite the authors' recommendation of using polyply along with martinize2/vermouth, no concrete evidence has been provided to support the authors' claim. Therefore, the manuscript must be modified to either remove these claims or include new evidence.

Method descriptions on Martinize2 and graph algorithms in SI should be core content of the manuscript. I argue that Figure S1 and Figure S2 are more important than Figure 3 (protonation state). I recommend the authors can make a workflow chart combining Figure S1 and S2 to explain Martinize2 and graph algorithms in main text.

In Figure 3 (protonation state), the figure itself and the captions are ambiguous about whether at the end the residue is simply renamed from HIS to HIP, or if hydrogen is removed from HIP to recover HIS.

In "Incorporating a Ligand small-molecule Database", the authors are calling for a community effort to build a small-molecule database. Some guidance on when the current database/algorithm combination does or does not work will help the community in contributing.

A speed comparison is needed to compare Martinize2 and Martinize.