Docking Ligands into Flexible and Solvated Macromolecules. 5. Force-Field-Based Prediction of Binding Affinities of Ligands to Proteins
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
We report herein our efforts in the development of three empirical scoring functions with application in protein-ligand docking. A first scoring function was developed from 209 crystal structures of protein-ligand complexes and a second one from 946 cross-docked complexes. Tuning of the coefficients for the different terms making up these functions was performed by an iterative approach to optimize the correlations between observed activities and calculated scores. A third scoring function was developed from libraries of known actives and decoys docked to six different protein conformational ensembles. In the latter case, the tuning of the coefficients was performed so as to optimize the area under the curve of a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) for the discrimination of actives and inactives. The newly developed scoring functions were next assessed on independent sets of protein-ligand complexes for their ability to predict binding affinities and to discriminate actives from inactives. In the first validation the first function, which was trained on active compounds only, performed as well as other commonly used ones. On a high-throughput virtual screening validation on five protein conformational ensembles, the third scoring function that included data from inactive compounds performed significantly better. This validation showed that the inclusion of data from inactive compounds is critical for performance in virtual high-throughput screening applications.
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 | 0.000 | 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