An MM/3D-RISM Approach for Ligand Binding Affinities
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 have modified the popular MM/PBSA or MM/GBSA approaches (molecular mechanics for a biomolecule, combined with a Poisson-Boltzmann or generalized Born electrostatic and surface area nonelectrostatic solvation energy) by employing instead the statistical-mechanical, three-dimensional molecular theory of solvation (also known as 3D reference interaction site model, or 3D-RISM-KH) coupled with molecular mechanics or molecular dynamics ( Blinov , N. ; et al. Biophys. J. 2010 ; Luchko , T. ; et al. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2010 ). Unlike the PBSA or GBSA semiempirical approaches, the 3D-RISM-KH theory yields a full molecular picture of the solvation structure and thermodynamics from the first principles, with proper account of chemical specificities of both solvent and biomolecules, such as hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic interactions, salt bridges, etc. We test the method on the binding of seven biotin analogues to avidin in aqueous solution and show it to work well in predicting the ligand-binding affinities. We have compared the results of 3D-RISM-KH with four different generalized Born and two Poisson-Boltzmann methods. They give absolute binding energies that differ by up to 208 kJ/mol and mean absolute deviations in the relative affinities of 10-43 kJ/mol.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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