MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996808075 · doi:10.1021/ci900358z

Quantum Chemical Associations Ligand−Residue: Their Role to Predict Flavonoid Binding Sites in Proteins

2010· article· en· W1996808075 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto Rolo-Naranjo, Edelsys Codorniu‐Hernández, Noel Ferro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Information and Modeling · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum chemicalLigand (biochemistry)Virtual screeningFlavonoidChemistryBinding siteIn silicoResidue (chemistry)Computational chemistryStereochemistryAmino acid residueComputational biologyBiochemistryMolecular dynamicsBiologyMoleculeOrganic chemistryPeptide sequenceReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel approach is applied for the prediction of potential binding sites in ligand-protein interactions. This methodology introduces an integral strategy based on the calculation of protein geometrical parameters and the use of a quantum mechanical descriptor, Binding Local Site (B(LS)). A screening of the most likely cavities in the protein crystal structure is carried out where the analysis of geometric cavities is performed, and the virtual centers for binding (VCB) are located. The VCB surrounding amino acid residues (AA) are evaluated through the calculation of the B(LS) by using the theoretical affinity order between the ligand and each AA. It includes a quantum scoring function based on the ligand-AA association energies and entropies. A contribution to the understanding of flavonoid-protein interactions is provided as well. The new bioinformatic strategy makes good predictions for flavonoid ligands. The calculated binding sites are quite in agreement with the crystal binding sites of 10 flavonoid binding proteins. This is a contribution of quantum mechanics in some phases of in silico drug design.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Information and ModelingSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207