Solvated Interaction Energy (SIE) for Scoring Protein−Ligand Binding Affinities. 1. Exploring the Parameter Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a binding free energy function that consists of force field terms supplemented by solvation terms. We used this function to calibrate the solvation model along with the binding interaction terms in a self-consistent manner. The motivation for this approach was that the solute dielectric-constant dependence of calculated hydration gas-to-water transfer free energies is markedly different from that of binding free energies (J. Comput. Chem. 2003, 24, 954). Hence, we sought to calibrate directly the solvation terms in the context of a binding calculation. The five parameters of the model were systematically scanned to best reproduce the absolute binding free energies for a set of 99 protein-ligand complexes. We obtained a mean unsigned error of 1.29 kcal/mol for the predicted absolute binding affinity in a parameter space that was fairly shallow near the optimum. The lowest errors were obtained with solute dielectric values of Din = 20 or higher and scaling of the intermolecular van der Waals interaction energy by factors ranging from 0.03 to 0.15. The high apparent Din and strong van der Waals scaling may reflect the anticorrelation of the change in solvated potential energy and configurational entropy, that is, enthalpy-entropy compensation in ligand binding (Biophys. J. 2004, 87, 3035-3049). Five variations of preparing the protein-ligand data set were explored in order to examine the effect of energy refinement and the presence of bound water on the calculated results. We find that retaining water in the final protein structure used for calculating the binding free energy is not necessary to obtain good results; that is the continuum solvation model is sufficient. Virtual screening enrichment studies on estrogen receptor and thymidine kinase showed a good ability of the binding free energy function to recover true hits in a collection of decoys.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".