Docking Ligands into Flexible and Solvated Macromolecules. 7. Impact of Protein Flexibility and Water Molecules on Docking-Based Virtual Screening Accuracy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of predictive computational methods in the drug discovery process is in a state of continual growth. Over the last two decades, an increasingly large number of docking tools have been developed to identify hits or optimize lead molecules through in-silico screening of chemical libraries to proteins. In recent years, the focus has been on implementing protein flexibility and water molecules. Our efforts led to the development of Fitted first reported in 2007 and further developed since then. In this study, we wished to evaluate the impact of protein flexibility and occurrence of water molecules on the accuracy of the Fitted docking program to discriminate active compounds from inactive compounds in virtual screening (VS) campaigns. For this purpose, a total of 171 proteins cocrystallized with small molecules representing 40 unique enzymes and receptors as well as sets of known ligands and decoys were selected from the Protein Data Bank (PDB) and the Directory of Useful Decoys (DUD), respectively. This study revealed that implementing displaceable crystallographic or computationally placed particle water molecules and protein flexibility can improve the enrichment in active compounds. In addition, an informed decision based on library diversity or research objectives (hit discovery vs lead optimization) on which implementation to use may lead to significant improvements.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it