Pharmacophore Screening of the Protein Data Bank for Specific Binding Site Chemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A simple computational approach was developed to screen the Protein Data Bank (PDB) for putative pockets possessing a specific binding site chemistry and geometry. The method employs two commonly used 3D screening technologies, namely identification of cavities in protein structures and pharmacophore screening of chemical libraries. For each protein structure, a pocket finding algorithm is used to extract potential binding sites containing the correct types of residues, which are then stored in a large SDF-formatted virtual library; pharmacophore filters describing the desired binding site chemistry and geometry are then applied to screen this virtual library and identify pockets matching the specified structural chemistry. As an example, this approach was used to screen all human protein structures in the PDB and identify sites having chemistry similar to that of known methyl-lysine binding domains that recognize chromatin methylation marks. The selected genes include known readers of the histone code as well as novel binding pockets that may be involved in epigenetic signaling. Putative allosteric sites were identified on the structures of TP53BP1, L3MBTL3, CHEK1, KDM4A, and CREBBP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".