A branch and cut algorithm for the optimal solution of the side-chain placement problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rigid--body docking approaches are not sufficient to predict the structure of a protein complex from the unbound (native) structures of the two proteins. Accounting for side chain flexibility is an important step towards fully flexible protein docking. This work describes an approach that allows conformational flexibility for the side chains while keeping the protein backbone rigid. Starting from candidates created by a rigid--docking algorithm, we demangle the side chains of the docking site, thus creating reasonable approximations of the true complex structure. These structures are ranked with respect to the binding free energy. We present two new techniques for side chain demangling. Both approaches are based on a discrete representation of the side chain conformational space by the use of a rotamer library. This leads to a combinatorial optimization problem. For the solution of this problem we propose a fast heuristic approach and an exact, albeit slower, method that uses branch--\\&--cut techniques. As a test set we use the unbound structures of three proteases and the corresponding protein inhibitors. For each of the examples, the highest--ranking conformation produced was a good approximation of the true complex structure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".