Solvated Interaction Energy (SIE) for Scoring Protein–Ligand Binding Affinities. 2. Benchmark in the CSAR-2010 Scoring Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solvated interaction energy (SIE) is an end-point physics-based scoring function for predicting binding affinities from force-field nonbonded interaction terms, continuum solvation, and configurational entropy linear compensation. We tested the SIE function in the Community Structure-Activity Resource (CSAR) scoring challenge consisting of high-resolution cocrystal structures for 343 protein-ligand complexes with high-quality binding affinity data and high diversity with respect to protein targets. Particular emphasis was placed on the sensitivity of SIE predictions to the assignment of protonation and tautomeric states in the complex and the treatment of metal ions near the protein-ligand interface. These were manually curated from an originally distributed CSAR-HiQ data set version, leading to the currently distributed CSAR-NRC-HiQ version. We found that this manual curation was a critical step for accurately testing the performance of the SIE function. The standard SIE parametrization, previously calibrated on an independent data set, predicted absolute binding affinities with a mean-unsigned-error (MUE) of 2.41 kcal/mol for the CSAR-HiQ version, which improved to 1.98 kcal/mol for the upgraded CSAR-NRC-HiQ version. Half-half retraining-testing of SIE parameters on two predefined subsets of CSAR-NRC-HiQ led to only marginal further improvements to an MUE of 1.83 kcal/mol. Hence, we do not recommend altering the current default parameters of SIE at this time. For a sample of SIE outliers, additional calculations by molecular dynamics-based SIE averaging with or without incorporation of ligand strain, by MM-PB(GB)/SA methods with or without entropic estimates, or even by the linear interaction energy (LIE) formalism with an explicit solvent model, did not further improve predictions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
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".