An exhaustive description of the molecular recognition mechanism between a ligand and its biological target is of great value because it provides the opportunity for an exogenous control of the related process. Very often this aim can be pursued using high resolution structures of the complex in combination with inexpensive computational protocols such as docking algorithms. Unfortunately, in many other cases a number of factors, like protein flexibility or solvent effects, increase the degree of complexity of ligand/protein interaction and these standard techniques are no longer sufficient to describe the binding event. We have experienced and tested these limits in the present study in which we have developed and revealed the mechanism of binding of a new series of potent inhibitors of Adenosine Deaminase. We have first performed a large number of docking calculations, which unfortunately failed to yield reliable results due to the dynamical character of the enzyme and the complex role of the solvent. Thus, we have stepped up the computational strategy using a protocol based on metadynamics. Our approach has allowed dealing with protein motion and solvation during ligand binding and finally identifying the lowest energy binding modes of the most potent compound of the series, 4-decyl-pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidin-7-one.ADA | well-tempered metadynamics | ligand/protein docking | path collective variables | reweighting algorithm A denosine Deaminase (ADA) regulates the purine metabolism by catalyzing the irreversible hydrolysis of adenosine to inosine and 2′-deoxyadenosine to 2′-deoxyinosine. Thus, this enzyme plays a crucial role in many pathologies such as inflammation, some types of cancer, and others which are strictly connected to the physiological level of these nucleosides (1-5). Despite great efforts in developing ADA inhibitors, only Pentostatin is currently in clinical use (I in Fig. S1) (3). However, recent progress has been reported by Terasaka et al. and by some of us who have developed a new generation of nonnucleoside ADA inhibitors (II, III, and IV in Fig. S1) (6-11). Unfortunately, the understanding at molecular level of the ligand/ADA interaction is hampered by the pronounced ability of the active site to accommodate different inhibitors and by the crucial role played by water molecules during ligand binding. A rational drug design is further complicated by the fact that in response to different inhibitors, ADA can assume either an open or a closed conformation by changing the position of the H3 α-helix (Thr57-Ala73). The open conformation corresponds to the apo-form (PDB ID code 3iar) and is preferred when a nonnucleoside inhibitor is bound (12, 13). In this case, the active site presents a hydrophilic subsite S0 and three hydrophobic subsites F0, F1, and F2 (Fig. 1A) (13). The S0 subsite is defined by the structural gate formed by a β-strand (Leu182-Asp185) and two leucine side chains attached to the H3 α-helix while the F0 site is formed by the hydrophobic side chains of the H3 α-helix. In the op...