A parameterized, continuum electrostatic model for predicting protein p<i>K</i><sub>a</sub> values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognizing the limits of trying to achieve chemical accuracy for pK(a) calculations with a purely electrostatic model, we include empirical corrections into the Poisson-Boltzmann solver macroscopic electrostatics with atomic detail (Bashford, Biochemistry 1990;29:10219-10225), to improve the reliability and accuracy of the model. The total number of parameters is kept to a minimum to maximize the robustness of the model for compounds outside of the fitting dataset. The parameters are based on: (a) the electrostatic interaction between functional groups close to the titratable site, (b) the electrostatic work required to desolvate the residue, and (c) the site-to-site interactions. These interactions are straightforward to calculate once the electrostatic field has been solved for each residue using the linearized Poisson-Boltzmann equation and are assumed to be linearly related to the intrinsic pK(a). Two hundred and eighty-six residues from 30 proteins are used to determine the empirical parameters, which result in a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.70 for the entire set. Eight proteins with 46 experimentally known values were excluded from the parameterization to test the model. This test set had a RMSE of 1.08. We show that the parameterized model improves the results over other models, although like other models the error is strongly correlated with the degree to which a residue is buried. The parameters themselves indicate that local effects are most important for determining the pK(a), whereas site-to-site interactions are found to be less significant.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".